Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
(USC Thesis Other)
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
FACTORS INFLUENCING TEACHERS’ DIFFERENTIATED
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL CHOICES AND GIFTED AND NON-
GIFTED STUDENTS’ SELF-PERCEPTIONS
by
Dena M. Sellers
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Dena M. Sellers
ii
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to both of my wonderful families that have fully
supported me in numerous ways. To my husband Benjamin who pushed me
even when I was ready to give up and to whom I owe my aspirations of
higher education and therefore greater knowledge about education and the
ways in which to make positive change in education. To my daughter Abigail
who sat through many hours of Mommy working on the computer, giving me
hugs and kisses when I needed them most. To my Mom, Grandma and
sisters Kristyn and Aimee who never doubted that I could complete this
process and who listened to education jargon long after they lost interest. To
Michael, Joyce and Emily Sellers who supported me every step of the way in
discussing and proofreading many drafts and always believing in me. You
are all the best cheerleading section a girl could have.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I must, of course, acknowledge Dr. Sandra Kaplan my mentor and
chair on this dissertation. Without her guidance I could not have developed
such an understanding of differentiated curriculum and instruction. I want to
acknowledge Dr. Gisele Ragusa and Dr. Margo Pensavalle for serving on my
committee and for providing me with thoughtful questions during this
process. To Linda Peralta and Robert Iezza my directors during this process
who never hesitated to allow me to do whatever I needed to complete this
dissertation. To Dr. Jon Sand my friend and colleague who selflessly gave
hours to help me organize and edit this dissertation. To the teachers and
staff of Ladera Elementary School who were very patient during this process
and who always listened to ideas and wished me luck along the way. Thank
you also to the teachers who so willingly participated in the interviews for this
dissertation.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iii
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
ABSTRACT
ix
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Study10
Specific Research Questions
Methodology
Theoretical Framework
Assumptions
Limitations
Delimitations
Definition of Terms
1
1
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
16
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Current Federal and State Laws and Statutes
Differentiated Curriculum Design
Characteristics of Gifted Students
Teacher Characteristics
Influences on Teacher’s Choices
Student Development and Perceptions
Cluster Grouping
19
19
20
23
25
30
36
40
45
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Conceptual Model
Research Questions
Nature of the Study
48
48
48
51
51
53
v
Study Population
Instrumentation
Research Procedure
Pilot Study
Data Reduction
58
59
62
63
64
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
Theoretical Framework
Findings
Summary of Findings
67
67
67
71
72
126
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Sample and Methodology
Key Findings
Implications
Limitations
Areas for Future Research
Conclusion
128
128
128
129
131
131
133
141
143
144
145
REFERENCES
Appendix A. Teacher Questionnaire
Appendix B. All About Me Student Survey
Appendix C. Interview Protocol
Appendix D. Class Composition Cards for Interview
Appendix E. Lesson Sample Cards
147
154
162
171
173
177
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Description of Lesson Cards for Interviews
Rationales of Teachers by Percentage
Interviewed Teachers’ Demographics
Interviewed Teachers’ Choices for Lessons
Responses of Teacher One’s Students to How
Students Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
Responses of Teacher One’s Students on How
Students Perceive Themselves as Students
Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in
Teacher One’s Class
Responses of Teacher Two’s Students to How
Students Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
Responses of Teacher Two’s Students on How
Students Perceive Themselves as Students
Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in
Teacher Two’s Class
Responses of Teacher Three’s Students to How
Students Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
Responses of Teacher Three’s Students on How
Students Perceive Themselves as Students
Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in
Teacher Three’s Class
Responses of Teacher Four’s Students to How
Students Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
57
90
95
96
97
98
98
99
100
100
101
102
103
104
vii
Table 15:
Table 16:
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
Table 22:
Table 23:
Table 24:
Table 25:
Table 26:
Table 27:
Responses of Teacher Four’s Students on How
Students Perceive Themselves as Students
Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in
Teacher Four’s Class
Responses of Teacher Five’s Students to How
Students Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
Responses of Teacher Five’s Students on How
Students Perceive Themselves as Students
Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in
Teacher Five’s Class
Responses of Teacher Six’s Students to How
Students Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
Responses of Teacher Six’s Students on How
Students Perceive Themselves as Students
Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in
Teacher Six’s Class
Responses of All Student Perceptions of Self as
Learners
Responses of All Students By Teacher and Student
Classification
Teacher Responses to Lesson Choices by
Frequency
Interview Responses of Rationale of Interviewed
Teachers by Frequency
Percent Teachers Chose The Differentiated Lesson
104
105
106
106
107
108
108
109
110
111
116
121
125
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Conceptual Model for the Study
Teacher Questionnaire Item 1
Teacher Questionnaire Item 2
Teacher Questionnaire Item 3
Teacher Questionnaire Item 4
Teacher Questionnaire Item 5
Teacher Questionnaire Item 6
Teacher Questionnaire Item 7
Teacher Questionnaire Item 8
Teacher Questionnaire Item 9
Teacher Questionnaire Item 10
12. Teacher Questionnaire Item 11
13. Teacher Questionnaire Item 12
Teacher Questionnaire Item 13
52
74
75
77
77
79
80
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
ix
ABSTRACT
For years research on gifted education has discussed the importance
of professional development for teachers of gifted students. This study
examined data on how professional development has affected the choices of
a group of teachers trained through a Javits Grant Project compared to a
control group of teachers. This data revealed that professional development
in models of teaching and differentiated curriculum and instruction resulted in
teachers more often selecting differentiated strategies such as grouping
practices, use of prompts of depth and complexity and teaching universal
concepts and big ideas. Teachers also selected rationales for their choices
of differentiated curriculum and instruction strategies such as affects all
learners, expectations of the school or district, and expediency. Six of the
teachers in the Javits Grant Project were then interviewed in order to
determine how class composition affected their choices for differentiated or
traditional lessons. These teachers’ responses revealed that they would
choose to teach the differentiated lesson consistently only for classes with a
cluster group of gifted students or a class comprised solely of gifted students.
This study also examined the self-perceptions of students in these six
teachers’ classrooms in order to determine if a relationship existed between
the teacher’s choices for differentiated lessons and their students’ self-
perceptions. No significant relationship existed between the self-perception
x
responses of either of the groups; gifted versus non-gifted students in each
teacher’s classroom, or all gifted versus non-gifted students surveyed.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Gifted students represent a complex problem in our educational
system. Tannenbaum (1998) stated that America has been in a dilemma
about enriched school services for the gifted. He wrote that on one hand we
recognize the value in cultivating their excellence from the earliest time that
is discernible, yet, “There is a distrust of what many see as educational
favoritism, with the rich in ability being helped to get richer in educational
opportunities, while their less able peers languish in educational poverty” (p.
4). In 1972, Marland wrote his definition of the gifted student that is still
widely used today and continues to impact the identification and instruction of
gifted students.
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally
qualified persons who by virtues of outstanding abilities are capable of
high performance. These are children who require differentiated
educational programs and services beyond those normally provided
by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to
self and society.
Gallagher (1985) wrote in response to Marland’s definition, “In other
words, it does no good to find them if we don’t intend to do something
distinctive about their education” (p. 6). We then can recognize that gifted
students have distinct abilities, needs and preferences that could be
enhanced through a differentiated curriculum.
2
Sandra Kaplan (2001) stated that the original basis for differentiation
for gifted students was based on their recognized strengths and the
inadequacy of the core or general curriculum to meet their educational
needs. Archambault et al. (1993) recognized that the majority of gifted
students only spend two to three hours per week outside of the regular
classroom and, “Therefore what happens in this setting will have a profound
effect on what gifted students learn, how they feel about school, what
subjects they take, and the career paths they follow” (Archambault et al.
1993, p. ix).
Tannenbaum (1998) wrote, “A gifted child may…come to realize that
the search for a community of able and appreciative cohorts who value their
world of ideas may not be as easy as it should be.” School experiences
shape children; this is true for gifted students as well. Whitmore (1980)
stated, “Many factors in the traditional elementary or secondary classrooms
contribute to the vulnerability of the gifted student” (p. 152). Gifted students
are vulnerable to becoming bored or disinterested in school curriculum
because of a “Back to Basics” trend in schools (Whitmore, 1980).
“Historically, there has tended to be a strongly held belief among many
educators that a child of above average abilities will naturally achieve his or
her potential without the need for specific intervention or challenging
strategies” (Bates & Munday, 2005, p. 1). Bates continued by saying:
3
We clearly see the need to intervene with less able pupils, or pupils
with specific learning difficulties, in order to ensure that they have the
best possible opportunities in life. Our able, gifted and talented pupils
have the same rights to a curriculum that caters for their individual
needs, and which allows them to develop their strengths in an ethos
where diversity is both recognized and celebrated (Bates & Munday,
2005, p. 2).
Barbara Clark (1997) acknowledged that the inclusion movement and
heterogeneous classrooms have the potential for increasing awareness
about the varying needs of students but there are barriers such as lack of
teacher preparation, the tremendous diversity in classrooms, and the sheer
number of students. She also found that the de-tracking movement has
often robbed teachers of the ability to make decisions about grouping
students to meet their needs. “It is far from being moral or democratic to deny
advanced, appropriately paced, complex and divergent materials and
instruction to students who will lose ability, interest, and motivation without
such modifications” (Clark, 1997, p. 20).
In California the predominant needs of gifted learners have been
prescribed by state laws, guidelines and district policies. These regulations
provide a range of programmatic and curricular options from which districts
and schools can develop their gifted program. Governing school boards that
choose to offer GATE programs in their schools can establish three different
types of programs: special day classes, pull out programs, and cluster
grouping for gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms. Special day
classes are comprised solely of students that have been identified as gifted
4
or talented and are designed to meet the specific academic needs of gifted
students. These classes are usually taught by a teacher who has specific
preparation and competencies in the teaching of gifted children. Pull-out
programs, sometimes called part-time groupings, occur when gifted and
talented students attend classes or seminars consisting solely of identified
students for a part of the school day. Cluster grouping in mixed ability or
heterogeneous classrooms is when gifted and talented students are grouped
within a regular classroom setting and receive differentiated activities from
the regular classroom teacher (California Department of Education, 2005).
Rogers (2002) extensively analyzed the research on the various types of
grouping and showed that grouping in general is positive for gifted students,
even though there are still educators who believe grouping to be elitist or
detrimental to other students in some way.
In the California State Board of Education Recommended Standards
for Gifted and Talented Students, Section 3 of the Curriculum and Instruction
GATE Standard states, “Districts develop differentiated curriculum,
instructional models and strategies that are aligned with and extend the state
academic content standards and curriculum frameworks (California State
Board of Education, 2005). These standards state that the curriculum
should be related to recognized theories, models and practices from
literature. The differentiated curriculum should be responsive to the needs,
interests and abilities of gifted students. It should also be supported by
5
appropriate structures and resources (California State Board of Education,
2005).
In their book Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding
by Design, Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) stated, “Few teachers find their
work effective or satisfying when they simply ‘serve up’ a curriculum…to their
students with no regard for their varied learning needs” (p. 1). So they utilize
Differentiated Instruction as a framework for instructional planning to address
the variances among students in their classroom (Tomlinson & McTighe,
2006, p. 2). Tomlinson (2006) defined Differentiated Instruction as focusing
on whom we teach, where we teach and how we teach. “Its primary goal is
ensuring that teachers focus on processes and procedures that ensure
effective learning for varied individuals” (p. 3). Teachers should use
differentiation as a consistent philosophy for planning and teaching, not just
as a set of activities for students to do.
Differentiation is a philosophy that enables teachers to plan
strategically in order to reach the needs of the diverse learners in
classrooms today to achieve targeted standards. Differentiation is not
a set of tools, but a philosophy that a teacher embraces to reach the
unique needs of every learner (Gregory & Chapman, 2002, p. x).
Sylvia Rimm states in the foreword of Teaching Gifted Kids in the
Regular Classroom (2001), “The yearning for learning is stifled for children
who sit in classrooms surrounded by lessons they could easily teach…It
takes concerned teachers and parents who are willing to lead gifted children
to the excitement of challenging learning” (p. xi). Meeting the needs of gifted
6
learners takes a direct effort on the part of the teacher to ensure that the
students are engaged in the curriculum. “A teacher’s responsibility is to
teach the students, and to make sure that all students learn new content
every day” (Winebrenner, 2001, p. 1).
It is important to make a distinction between the terms curriculum and
instruction because they are often used interchangeably when in fact they
represent two separate factors teachers must take into account when
planning. In her book, Karen Rogers (2002) distinguishes between
curriculum and instruction in this way, “Curriculum, in general, is the content
that a teacher or school plans to teach” (p. 79). Content is summarized as
the “what” of learning: facts, concepts, principles, rules, theories, and
generalizations related to the subject matter of the standards. “The term
instruction refers to how the curriculum will be taught” (p. 79) or the
strategies used to implement the curriculum. This includes management,
delivery and process modifications (Rogers, 2002). Gifted students are
consumers of the curricular and instructional choices the classroom teacher
makes. “In too many school settings, little differentiation of curriculum and
instruction for gifted students is provided during the school day, and minimal
opportunities are offered” (Reis, 2004.)
Teacher’s instructional decisions are influenced by many elements
which can affect how much or how little differentiation occurs in the
classroom. Graffam (2006) studied the many and varied practices of two
7
identified exemplary teachers of the gifted. With respect to planning they
had two different approaches. One teacher micromanaged her planning by
planning on a week-to-week basis, while the other focused on the whole
year. Both teachers, however, acknowledged the significance of knowing
that no plan or process will ever work for every student so they are constantly
reinventing themselves in the classroom in order to remain flexible in order to
allow for an exciting classroom (Graffam, 2006, p. 124). In her study of
teacher planning McCutcheon (1980) found that teacher planning, “Involves
a complex, simultaneous juggling of much information about children, subject
matter, school practices, and policies” (p. 20). McCutcheon (1980) also
found that teachers rely on textbooks to drive their planning because the
textbooks were close at hand and less difficult to obtain, which can lead to
fragmentation and less continuity in their lessons.
Teachers are aware that their students are individuals with varied
instructional and curricular needs. Yet they often continue to present
students with the textbook prescribed curriculum. Van Tassel-Baska (2004)
stated that evidence currently suggests that in general both teachers of the
gifted and regular classroom teachers are underutilizing differentiation
practices for gifted students.
“For students to succeed, they need to believe that they can learn,
and that what they are learning is useful, relevant, and meaningful for them.
They need to know that they belong in the classroom and that they are
8
responsible for their own learning” (Winebrenner, 2001, p. 1). Gregory and
Chapman (2002) emphasize creating a climate for learning in a differentiated
classroom and state that when a teacher focuses instruction on the “middle”
achieving students, higher achieving students will become bored while lower
achieving students downshift away from challenge. They go on to state that
classrooms that provide students with choice, a large component of
differentiation, demonstrate mutual respect and in turn create supportive
learning environments (p. 7). The teacher needs to consider the students
needs, abilities and interests when planning and designing instructional
experiences.
Responsive teaching necessitates that a teacher work continuously to
establish a positive relationship with individual learners and come to
understand which approaches to learning are most effective for
various learners. Learner success benefits from teachers who are
responsive to a learner’s particular needs (Tomlinson & McTighe,
2006, p. 18).
Winebrenner (2001) stated, “A teacher’s responsibility is not to teach
the content. A teacher’s responsibility is to teach the students, and to make
sure that all students learn new content every day” (p. 1). Students are the
ones receiving the instruction in the classroom and it is important to know
how our students feel in the classroom as learners based on that instruction.
It is also important to determine which teaching practices may be affecting
these students’ perceptions of themselves in the classroom.
9
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the curricular and
instructional choices teachers make for gifted students and why teachers
perceive these choices to be appropriate for their classroom. This study
sought to determine how teacher’s choices were affected by such elements
as expediency, previous experiences, district and school expectations,
providing challenge to students, expectations or needs of their gifted
students, affect of differentiating curriculum and instruction on all learners in
the classroom and classroom composition. Students interpret the curriculum
and instruction in many different ways and their perceptions about the
curriculum and instruction can affect how they respond to their abilities in the
classroom and how they respond to teacher perceptions of them in the
classroom. When a gifted student’s needs, abilities, and interests are not
taken into account it can change their self-concept. Clark (1997) in response
to the fact that gifted students can have low self-concepts states,
“Sometimes the signals they receive from others add to this lower self-image”
(p. 184). Teachers and their choices can have an impact on gifted learners’
self-perceptions. Teachers need to consider their students’ needs when
planning and designing classroom instruction. As Tomlinson (2006) writes,
“Responsive or differentiated teaching means a teacher is as attuned to
students’ varied learning needs as to the requirements of a thoughtful and
well-articulated classroom” (p. 18). This study proposed to provide educators
10
with information to make informed decisions in curriculum and instructional
strategies designed for gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms. The
study also sought to reveal how teachers’ choices of curriculum and
instructional strategies affect students’ perceptions in the classroom or how
they perceive the teachers see them and how they see themselves as
learners in the classroom.
Significance of the Study
Gifted learners, like all students, start each school year in any
classroom with expectations for their education. They come to the classroom
first looking for things like affirmation, affiliation, accomplishment, and
autonomy (Tomlinson, 2003). They are looking for adults who accept them,
value them, guide them, and represent for them what it means to be a
competent and caring adult” (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006, p. 16). Tomlinson
continued on to state that, “Quality curriculum should play a central role in
meeting the core needs of students…but it is the teacher’s job to make the
link between the basic human needs of students and curriculum.”
Van Tassel-Baska (1981) stated, “In general, teachers should spend
more time considering the needs of their ‘above-average’ students” (p. 16).
Van Tassel-Baska (1981) concluded that classrooms all over and at every
level contain students that could be doing far more than they are expected to
do within the standard, prescribed curriculum.
11
Gifted learners should be active participants in their learning.
Joseph Renzulli (2004) stated,
In the regular classroom, the student is generally cast in the role of
a learner of lessons and a doer of exercises…Most lessons are
prescribed by the teacher or textbook and are presented to
students without affording them much opportunity to decide
whether or not they want to participate (p. 52).
Renzulli also stated, “In the majority of cases, the lessons we use in the
regular classroom have predetermined pathways to the solutions of the
problem” (p. 53). Educators should recognize the importance of responding
to the established needs of gifted students. Analysis of the data from this
study sought to reveal information concerning the relationship between
teachers’ choices of differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies and
how students, both gifted and non-gifted, perceive themselves as learners in
mixed ability classrooms.
Specific Research Questions
1. Which curriculum and instructional strategies do teachers choose for
gifted students?
2. What rationales do teachers attribute to their curriculum and
instructional strategies for gifted students?
3. What is the relationship between gifted and non-gifted students’ self-
perceptions in a heterogeneous classroom and the teachers’ choices
of curriculum and instructional strategies?
12
4. How is the teacher’s selection of appropriate curriculum for the
gifted affected by the context of class composition?
Methodology
Teachers informed and practicing differentiated curriculum and
instruction methods in mixed ability or heterogeneous classrooms and their
students are the population for this study. These teachers are participants in
a Federal Javits Grant Project designed to develop teacher expertise for the
purpose of raising achievement levels of a diverse group of gifted students.
Their classes also comprised the population for the research which contained
students with a diversity of abilities and designations; those identified gifted
by state law, English language learners, special education, and typical
students. The teachers from the entire study completed a Teacher
Questionnaire outlining sets of teaching strategies from which they selected
the strategy they assigned the most priority or value to in a forced choice
format, selecting one methodology over another, and then identified a single
rationale for selecting that method as the one they assign the most priority or
value. A sample of teachers from the study was then interviewed to further
explore their instructional choices when presented with different class
compositions and sizes. Their rationales for instructional decisions based on
differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies were recorded in the
interview and examined to note trends that substantiate the teachers’
13
rationale for curriculum and instructional decision-making. Students in
their classrooms also completed a survey that asked them to choose from
pictorial representations of students in order to depict how they see
themselves as learners in the classroom and how they perceive the teacher
sees them as learners in the classroom. The data from the teacher
interviews and student surveys were related in order to identify qualitative
trends in the information regarding teacher’s lesson choices and how
students perceive themselves in the heterogeneous classroom environment.
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in Vygotsky’s theory of a child’s Zone of
Proximal development. Vygotsky (1978) defined the zone of proximal
development as the distance between the actual development level of a child
as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential
development of a child under adult guidance (p. 86). Therefore, “When
learning is properly organized, it results in mental development and sets into
motion a whole variety of developmental processes…developing culturally
organized psychological functions” (Green & Piel, 2002, p. 259). Vygotsky
contended that cognitive development is strongly influenced by important
adults in a child’s life which would include their teacher and parents as well
as their peers (Green & Piel, 2002). Students placed in cluster grouped
classrooms with other identified gifted students would have the supportive,
14
trained adult along with peers they can relate to based on the commonality
of being identified gifted. Cluster grouping increases their opportunity to
interact with other gifted students as is prescribed by Vygotsky. Students
learning should be consistently framed by their zone of proximal
development which is reached in a differentiated curriculum. Vygotsky
(1978) stated that the only good learning is that which is in advance of
development. This is directly related to the idea that when a child’s learning
is differentiated, in order to help them reach their individual potential, their
teacher is considering their zone of proximal development when choosing
curricular and instructional strategies for them.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed that the experimental, or trained teachers,
were attentive to training opportunities in differentiated instructional
strategies and have subsequently adopted those strategies into practice in
their classrooms. In completing the Teacher Questionnaires the researcher
assumed that teachers will choose the methodology that they are currently
using on a consistent basis and not just the methodology they feel aligns
best with differentiated instructional strategies. Students completing surveys
were assumed to be given surveys in a confidential manner and be allowed
the opportunity to answer honestly and independently based on their current
perceptions.
15
Limitations
Study limitations included the researcher not being the developer of
the Teacher Questionnaire or student survey being administered to teachers
or students due to the fact that they are part of a larger study being
conducted in conjunction with a Javits Grant received from the Department of
Education. In addition to this, the subjects also have been pre-selected in
accordance to the original evaluation design of the grant.
Delimitations
The generalizability of this study is limited by several factors. The first
is the time of year in which the survey is being administered because
students were also taking other assessments including the STAR testing
from the state of California and their responses could be affected because
they may be test weary. Another factor is the general dynamics of the
various schools and how they can interfere and influence in a teacher’s
ability to deliver instruction as they have been trained or feel is appropriate.
There are scheduling issues as well as program differences that vary from
school site to school site that have a large impact on instruction. Surveys
were completed by all students in a classroom, including students for which
English is not their primary language. These students have been among the
identified gifted students and, therefore, may have difficulty completing a
survey that relies on higher level language and reading skills. Another factor
16
is that, while teachers have had common staff development, they may not
understand one or more Teacher Questionnaire or interview items, or terms
used on the Teacher Questionnaire as well as they may not have a sufficient
understanding of differentiated instructional strategies in order to fully
implement them in their classroom. And finally, according to state law,
identification procedures for gifted students can vary by school district. So
while one student may be identified as gifted in one district, they may not
have been identified at a different school site. The criteria are different, and
therefore student profiles will vary under the umbrella of being identified as
gifted.
Definitions of Terms
Gifted and Talented Pupil (GATE) – a pupil enrolled in a public elementary or
secondary school of this state who is identified as possessing demonstrated
or potential abilities that give evidence of high-performance capability
(California Department of Education, 2007).
Differentiation – the modification of the curriculum to meet the unique needs
of learners. It may include modifications in complexity, depth, pacing, and
selecting among, rather than covering all, of the curriculum areas. The
modification is dependent on the individual needs of the student (California
Association for the Gifted, n.d.).
17
Self-concept – our perception of ourselves; in specific terms, it is our
attitudes, feelings, and knowledge about our abilities, skills, appearance and
social acceptability (Byrne, 1984).
Cluster Grouping – pupils are grouped within a regular classroom setting and
receive appropriately differentiated activities from the regular classroom
teacher (California Department of Education, 2005).
Core Curriculum – the courses of study, courses, subjects, classes, and
organized group activities provided by a school (California Department of
Education, 2007).
Differentiated Instruction – instruction that uses the flexibility of the
environment and the range of grouping patterns, materials, content, and
strategies to meet the assessed needs of the students (Clark, 1997, p. 432).
Creativity – The process of combining what exists into something new. The
something new could be a procedure, an idea, or a product. By federal and
state definition, creativity is a component of giftedness (CAG).
Critical Thinking – reasonable, reflective thinking focused on deciding what to
believe or do. (Ennis, 1993) - the use of analytical thinking for purposes of
decision-making. This includes the development of specific attitudes and
skills such as analyzing arguments and points of view, understanding
different perspectives, and reaching sound conclusions (CAG).
18
Universal/Big Ideas – ideas that connect otherwise isolated or inert facts,
skills, and experiences, enabling learners to meet and understand new
challenges (Wiggins & McTighe, 2006).
Heterogeneous Grouping – Grouping students by mixed ability or readiness
levels. A heterogeneous classroom is one in which a teacher is expected to
meet a broad range of student needs or readiness levels (NAGC, 2007).
Homogeneous Grouping – Grouping students by need, ability or interest.
Although variations exist between students in a homogeneous classroom,
the intent of this grouping pattern is to restrict the range of student readiness
or needs that a teacher must address (NAGC, 2007).
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 – This
program provides financial assistance through SEAs and LEAs and schools
with high numbers or high percentages of poor children to help ensure that
all children meet challenging state academic standards (U.S. Dept. of
Education, 2006).
19
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A review of literature was conducted to examine the research on
differentiated instruction in mixed ability classrooms. Teachers utilized
various strategies when designing curricular and instructional experiences for
their students. Barbara Clark (1997) explained that curriculum planning
should take into account the individual interests, needs, abilities, and learning
preferences of students. She also stated that the curriculum should not
penalize students for being gifted when their learning was restricted by
ignoring their gifted characteristics (p. 395). Gallagher (1985) identified three
general educational objectives he found to be in broad general agreement
when designing programs for the gifted and talented:
• Gifted children should master important conceptual systems that are at
the level of their abilities in various content fields.
• Gifted children should develop skills and strategies that enable them to
become more independent, creative, and self-sufficient searchers
after knowledge.
• Gifted children should develop a joy and excitement about learning that
will carry them through the drudgery and routine that is an inevitable
part of learning (p. 80).
20
The literature review included: (1) current federal and state laws
and statutes that affect gifted education; (2) established elements of
differentiated curriculum design; (3) characteristics of gifted students; (4)
characteristics of teachers of the gifted; (5) influences on teacher’s choices in
educating gifted students; (6) student perceptions of classroom practices;
and (7) cluster and within class grouping strategies for gifted students.
Current Federal and State Laws and Statutes
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) contains Subpart 6 that
specifically addresses the area of gifted education. This subpart, unlike
others in NCLB, lays down no specific rules or regulations regarding
requirements or implications of gifted education instead it aims to,
Initiate a coordinated program of scientifically based research,
demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities
designed to build and enhance the ability of elementary schools
and secondary schools nationwide to meet the special educational
needs of gifted and talented students.
Despite the current research guidelines on gifted education the NCLB Act
only encourages further investigation.
The No Child Left Behind Act focuses primarily on all students
performing at a “proficient” level. The National Association for Gifted
Children website affirms that, “No one would disagree with the goals of
NCLB: improve student achievement and ensure that all teachers are highly
qualified. However, the concern for gifted and talented advocates is that the
21
strategies within NCLB work against high-achieving students.” Joyce
VanTassel-Baska wrote in her 2006 article Content Analysis Across 20
Gifted Programs that she too was concerned that as NCLB was
implemented, gifted programs have gone by the wayside in favor of focusing
on students not performing at adequate levels versus our high achieving,
high ability students. According to VanTassel-Baska this was perpetuating
the problem of gifted programs being at a standstill, due to the lack of
support and resources (2006, p. 199). She also viewed this contributing to a
lack of motivation on the part of gifted students because performing at high
levels was not the focus of NCLB the current and prevailing educational
mandate (2006, p. 209).
In California (2001) Section 3 of the GATE standards outlines
appropriate programming for gifted students. Standard 3.1 calls for a
differentiated curriculum to be in place and to be responsive to the needs,
interests, and abilities of gifted students. The California Association for the
Gifted (CAG) (n.d.) stated that the rationale for this standard was a gifted
student’s need for a high level of depth, complexity and acceleration in their
learning because their learning was advanced and often requires materials
and concepts beyond their grade level. These needs require modification
and differentiation of their curriculum. Standard 3.2 stated that the
differentiated curriculum needed to be supported by appropriate structures
and resources. CAG (n.d.) rationale explained that the educational structure
22
should provide for more rapid progress and the challenge of intellectual
peer interaction which can be accomplished through various appropriate
structures.
Section 4 of the California Recommended Standards for Programs for
gifted students is titled Social Emotional Development which was relevant to
this study when analyzing student self-perceptions in the classroom.
Standard 4.1 states that actions to meet the affective needs of gifted
students are ongoing. The CAG (n.d.) rationale recognizes that the affective
needs of gifted students are overlooked by educators and parents in favor of
focusing on their academic needs. Their affective needs should be
appropriately tended to in order to assure balanced and simultaneous growth
of their cognitive and affective abilities. Standard 4.2 states that at-risk gifted
students need to be monitored and provided support. CAG (n.d.) elaborates
by acknowledging that gifted students’ advanced intellectual development
can make it more difficult to diagnose at-risk behaviors and that
underachievement can go unnoticed until other factors become apparent. In
this study we sought to identify some of those at-risk self-perceptions that
can affect a student’s achievement based on the instructional beliefs and
practices of their teacher.
23
Differentiated Curriculum Design
To combat the NCLB phenomenon of high stakes testing and a focus
on proficiency, researchers and gifted coordinators have returned to
promoting active differentiation in mixed ability classrooms for gifted
students. The National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2007) defines
differentiation as modifying curriculum and instruction according to content,
pacing, and/or product to meet unique student needs in the classroom.
Differentiation for gifted students is defined by Susan Winebrenner (2001) as,
“Providing gifted students with different tasks and activities than their age
peers – tasks that lead to real learning for them.” She outlined the five
elements of differentiation as content, process, product, environment and
assessment (Winebrenner, 2001, p. 5). Gifted students seek out
opportunities in these five areas which correlate with state recommended
GATE standards in California.
In her book, Differentiated Instructional Strategies in Practice:
Training, Implementation and Supervision, Gregory (2003) defined
differentiation as a philosophy that enables teachers to strategically plan in
order to reach the needs of the diverse learners in today’s heterogeneous
classrooms. She went on to state that differentiation is not just a set of
instructional tools but a philosophy to be embraced in order to meet the
needs of every learner.
24
Another aspect of differentiated curriculum design outlined by Lewis
and Doorlag in their book Teaching Special Students in General Education
Classrooms (1999) was promoting creativity and problem solving to
maximize the growth and development of gifted students. Creativity was
described as the ability to generate novel solutions to specific problems with
a focus on divergent thinking or proposing more than one solution to a
problem. According to Lewis and Doorlag (1999) teachers can encourage
creativity through providing regular opportunities for creative thinking,
developing fluency through brainstorming sessions, encouraging flexibility in
students including being able to change one’s perspective, promoting
originality in terms of new solutions, and teaching students how to elaborate
ideas to make them more detailed (pp. 406-408). As an extension of
creativity and divergent thinking, gifted students must also be given
opportunities to problem-solve. Lewis and Doorlag (1999) referenced
Feldhusen who described this as students becoming, “Sensitive to the fact
that problems exist and that they possess the skills required to develop
appropriate solutions for these problems (p. 408).” Through regular
exercises in creativity and problem-solving students would become more
proficient in these practices in order for them to have more tools to
understand their own thought processes and to guide their learning and
exploration in mixed ability classrooms.
25
Sandra Kaplan (2002) proposed teachers use a strategy called
Concentric Circles of Knowledge with their students to encourage teachers to
attain the goal of differentiated instruction in the regular classrooms.
Through Concentric Circles of Knowledge students probe content from
standards-based curriculum at various levels of sophistication. Standards-
based curriculum in itself does not meet the needs of gifted students. She
stated, “It is commonly acknowledged by teachers that differentiation
demands comprehension of standards-based content or subject matter that
challenges the potential of gifted students and facilitates their abilities to
exceed the standard” (Kaplan, 2002, p. 19). This was just one more strategy
in which teachers can promote differentiated learning for gifted students.
Trained teachers were aware that gifted students need these opportunities to
be creative, problem solve and look at content from varied levels of
sophistication in mixed ability classrooms. This study expanded on the
research of differentiation to include the relationship between differentiated
curriculum and instruction and students’ self-perceptions in heterogeneous
classrooms.
Characteristics of Gifted Students
While the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act defines
gifted and talented students as:
26
Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement
capability in areas such as intellectual, creative artistic, or leadership
capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and
activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop
those capabilities. (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2002)
There is no one universally accepted definition to describe gifted
students. There are, however, several characteristics researchers list that
are most commonly found in gifted learners. The California Association for
the Gifted (CAG) describes several characteristics of gifted learners, “That
differ from their age peers in every area of function: cognitive, affective,
physical, and intuitive (California Association for the Gifted, 1996, p. 3).
These differences commonly found between most gifted learners and their
age peers that require teachers to design a differentiated curriculum are:
• Advanced comprehension and a faster pace of learning
• A need for complexity and intensity
• A desire for depth shown through the ability to make connections
• A search for novelty through alternative and varied input and processes
Gifted learners are distinguished from high achievers in general
because gifted children exhibit an ability to generalize, to work with abstract
ideas, and to synthesize diverse relationships (California Association for the
Gifted, 1996).
In VanTassel-Baska’s Administrator’s Guide to the Education of Gifted
and Talented Children published for the National Association of State Boards
of education in 1981, she acknowledged that other students may have the
27
same characteristics as gifted students, but gifted students exhibit the
characteristics to a greater degree. She listed these characteristics as:
• Keen power of abstraction, willingness to examine the unusual
• Ability to abstract; conceptualize; interest in problem-solving and
applying concepts
• Interest in cause-effect relationships
• Early reader, and frequently a voracious one
• Large vocabulary, facility in expression
• Questioning attitude, intellectual curiosity
• Power of critical thinking, skepticism, self-criticism
• Creativeness and inventiveness, liking for new ways of doing things
• Powers of concentration, long attention span
• Persistent, goal-directed behavior; intrinsic motivation
• Sensitivity, empathy for others, need for emotional support
• High energy, alertness, and eagerness
• Independence in work and study, preference for individualized work
• Diversity of interests and abilities
Barbara Clark (1997) listed characteristics of gifted students that
require differentiating in order to advance their learning. She stated that
gifted learners could be distinguished from high achievers by acknowledging
that gifted children exhibit the ability to generalize, to work comfortably with
28
abstract ideas, and to synthesize diverse relationships to a far higher
degree (p. 54).
Robert Sternberg (2000) proposes a triarchic model of giftedness
where gifted individuals may display any combination of three attributes of
giftedness. The first attribute is being analytical, which is the ability to
analyze and evaluate one’s own ideas and those of others. The second
attribute of gifted individuals is being creative. He defined this as the ability
to generate one or more major ideas that are novel and of high quality. The
third attribute is being practical, meaning the ability to convince people of the
value of ideas and to render the ideas practical. Sternberg stated that gifted
individuals have different patterns of giftedness based on different
combinations of these attributes or skills.
Renzulli and Reis (2007) identified two broad categories of giftedness;
schoolhouse giftedness and creative-productive giftedness. Schoolhouse
giftedness is defined as test-taking or lesson-learning giftedness, which can
be identified through standardized assessment techniques. Creative-
Productive giftedness is defined as those aspects of human activity where a
premium is placed on developing original materials and products that are
purposefully designed to have an impact on one or more audiences. They
emphasized that both types are important, there is usually interaction
between the two types and that special provisions should be made in
29
programs for the gifted in order to encourage both types and their
interaction with each other.
Susan Winebrenner (2001) offered a “short list” of characteristics for
parents and teachers to utilize for initial identification of gifted learners, which
would deem it necessary for their curriculum and instruction to be
differentiated:
• Learns new material faster, and at an earlier age, than age peers
• Remembers what has been learned forever, making review
unnecessary
• Is able to deal with concepts that are too complex and abstract for age
peers
• Has a passionate interest in one or more topics, and would spend all
available time learning more about that topic if he or she could
• Does not need to watch the teacher to hear what is being said; can
operate on multiple brain channels simultaneously and process more
than one task at a time (Winebrenner, 2001, p. 9)
She also examined the differences among boys and girls, mainly in
terms of their social emotional needs in the classroom and life in general,
especially in relation to typical peers. Girls, she stated, need lots of
interaction with other gifted girls in order to maintain a positive attitude. They
benefit from affirmation of assertive behaviors from female role models and
30
need to be made aware that they do not have to choose between being
popular and being smart.
Boys, on the other hand, worry about being labeled as nerds or are in
direct contrast to typical male stereotypes because they enjoy intellectual
and creative activities. They may then attempt to hide their abilities or
interests in order to conform to meet the expectations that others have for
them (Winebrenner, 2001, p. 205).
While these descriptions thoroughly described how gifted students
might present themselves to a parent or teacher, they did not address how
students perceive themselves as learners. This study focused on those
perceptions in how students viewed themselves as a student in the
classroom and how they think the teacher viewed them as a student in the
classroom.
Teacher Characteristics
Sandra Kaplan (1999) wrote an article warning that our beliefs about
teachers of the gifted and what is occurring in their classrooms may be
discrepant and prohibiting students from receiving the necessary education
in order to maximize their potential. She stated,
In many instances, the most significant aspect of these…events
was to note the discrepancies between what the literature
described as appropriate in ideal classrooms for the gifted and the
reality of what is actually occurring in the classrooms with the gifted
(p. 45).
31
In fact, best practices may not be occurring even though they have been
identified for decades in terms of differentiated instruction, acceleration,
compacting, depth, complexity and novelty. She found from interviewing
students that the basic consumers of the gifted programs were too often
ignored when the teacher is developing curriculum and designing
instructional experiences. The students themselves should have been the
focus as a teacher designs meaningful classroom experiences. Student
progress and involvement could determine if the curriculum presented is
meeting the varying needs of the students in a mixed ability classroom.
Finally, she cautioned us against thinking that an experienced teacher is
more qualified to teach gifted students. She stated, “A novice teacher who
learns from the outset of a career how to teach the gifted could become a
more proficient teacher for these students than consistently retraining
veteran teachers for the task” (p. 45). If we shift our beliefs and focus to
some of our beginning teacher programs for training on gifted education and
differentiated instruction, we could lay the foundation for effective instruction
for the gifted.
Carol Ann Tomlinson’s article Lessons from Bright Learners about
Affect listed principles for teachers to reference regarding the needs of bright
learners, a few were relevant to this study in terms of how instruction and
32
teacher choices affected how students saw themselves as learners in the
classroom:
• Bright kids are kids first, it is a trait they have, but it is not who they are.
• Bright kids have basic needs, they may learn quickly, but they still need
to feel like the teacher invests in them – just like all other kids need
that sense of investment.
• Bright kids vary in their affective needs, adults make mistakes in two
ways, first in thinking that all smart kids come with emotional
problems, and second that smart kids have it made and can work
through anything on their own.
• The need for self-efficacy is developed when a person encounters
challenges that seem beyond grasp, but which the person surmounts
after all.
• The issue of intellectual power, bright kids need teachers and parents
who help them understand that the mental power they possess is fine
and who help them place limits on their intellectual power so that it
does not become overwhelming.
She went on to say that, “A great teacher for bright kids insists on
challenge, and is also a full partner in the sometimes frightening journey
toward accomplishment at a new level of demand” (Tomlinson, 2002, p. 41).
In reference to training teachers need in order to be prepared to teach
gifted students Mary Landrum stated,
33
Gifted learners are entitled to be served by professionals who have
specialized preparation in gifted education, expertise in appropriate
differentiated content and instructional methods, involvement in
ongoing professional development, and who possess exemplary
personal and professional traits (Landrum, Callahan, & Shaklee,
2001).
She also referenced the need for teachers to want to be involved in
improving their own practice through professional development.
Research also identified characteristics of teachers of the gifted that
most often improve a teacher’s ability to be successful and comfortable in
teaching gifted students. This was helpful for this study in examining how the
teachers as study participants compare to these ideal characteristics. CAG
(1996) described six positive teacher characteristics for teaching gifted
students. (1) Teachers need to have a strong commitment to the reality that
gifted students have special needs and require differentiated curriculum and
specialized teaching strategies. This commitment will drive a teacher’s
planning and lesson design for their gifted students so that their needs and
abilities are addressed daily in the classroom. (2) Teachers of the gifted
need to be confident in their abilities but also be willing to admit to
themselves and most importantly to their students that they do not know
everything and that they are learners as well. This demonstrates for students
that we are all lifelong learners and that students do not need to always have
the right answer right away. Knowledge is a journey that they are on and
they should not be discouraged by problem solving. (3) Teachers of the
34
gifted need to tolerate more student choice in the classroom and be able
to relinquish some of their control in the classroom in order to provide
students with the opportunity to engage in real, hands-on problem solving.
They should also allow students choice in how to represent their knowledge
and understanding in a way that is relative to the discipline that they are
studying. (4) Teachers with a cluster of gifted students in their class need to
be able to tolerate more talking in class than a teacher typically would
because gifted learners benefit from collaboration with each other as well as
using their strong verbal skills to enhance their learning and understanding.
(5) A sense of humor helps teachers of the gifted because gifted learners
often have their own keen sense of humor and are delighted when teachers
acknowledge that humor. This is one way to help promote social acceptance
of gifted students. (6) Finally, teachers of the gifted need to be active
learners themselves, always seeking out opportunities to gain new strategies
and insight into how to be effective teachers because professional
development opportunities in the age of NCLB are fewer for gifted education
(California Association for the Gifted, 1996, pp. 18-19).
Ben Graffam (2006), in his study of two exemplary teachers of the
gifted, explored methods and characteristics that benefit gifted learners. His
central findings included: Teaching gifted learners requires the teacher to
frame individualized and whole group learning simultaneously. The teacher
also frames her learning experiences on enrichment and creativity rather
35
than solely on academics. He also placed importance on the path a
teacher has taken before becoming a teacher of the gifted. The path is
significant in terms of personal background, pre-service training, and
professional reflection. Gifted educators need to be able to synthesize the
“canon” of elements of gifted education into a holistic instructional program
rather than individual concepts. Finally, he determined that the key to gifted
student engagement in the classroom in their assignments and willingness to
engage in challenging activities is based on relationships that teachers form
with their gifted learners. Motivation and personal investment increase when
the students have “bought into” the teacher’s classroom as a whole.
Winebrenner (2001) outlined several qualities of teachers that are
successful with gifted kids. Those that differ from the CAG list are: flexibility
in allowing different students to be working on different assignments; and
flexibility in how students are grouped. Teachers of gifted kids need to be
well-organized in order to have multiple on-going tasks in the classroom.
They need to have an awareness that gifted kids need less time to practice
previously taught material and more time to work with complex and abstract
tasks. Teachers of the gifted should work with parents to identify specific
areas of strength and interest in individual students and help guide parents to
seek resources and experiences outside of the school. One more area
Winebrenner listed as an important teacher quality is the ability and
willingness to connect content and curriculum to the learning styles and
36
interests of their students in order to empower students to follow their
specific interests in one or more subject areas (p. 193). In Karen Rogers
book, Re-Forming Gifted Education (2002), she cited that a teacher best
suited for teaching a cluster group of gifted students is one who (1) likes to
work with gifted students, (2) is trained or willing to be trained to work with
gifted students, and (3) will actually spend a proportionate amount of class
time with the cluster group of gifted students.
Teachers of gifted students make instructional choices each day for
the students in their classroom. In this study teachers with some or all of the
above characteristics were asked to choose between teaching methods that
they give most priority to or assign most value and to then identify a rationale
for those choices.
Influences on Teacher’s Choices
Teachers use many materials and teaching strategies in mixed ability
classrooms with gifted learners. Some research suggested that what
influences teacher decisions may have little to do with the needs, abilities or
interests of their students. Gallagher used an anecdotal example of an
administrator discussing a program for gifted athletes and describes how this
may meet with much approval, while programs for gifted learners do not.
“The culture and community will support the kind of activities that they find
necessary, valuable, and/or enjoyable” (Gallagher, 1985, p. 95). The school
37
community and the area in which we live can affect how teachers treat
gifted learners in the classroom and what kind of planning they do for gifted
students. Gallagher went on to advise,
If we, as teachers, are to deal effectively with these youngsters, we
must understand as thoroughly as possible our own emotional
blocks that stand between us and full acceptance of these
youngsters. One such block, whether verbalized or not, is that
these youngsters are the most thorough threat to the status quo
that one could possibly invent (Gallagher, 1985, p. 97).
As adults, we are often satisfied with the status quo and fear change in
routines and changes in curriculum and instruction. Gifted students require
differentiated instruction and learning which can make teachers feel as
though their past practices have been wrong, which is an uncomfortable
feeling. Gallagher also identified specific restraints that can influence
teachers’ decisions of activities and lessons in science classes for the gifted.
They included available time, the varying knowledge bases of the students,
and the knowledge base of the actual teacher. Teachers of the gifted, as
stated before, need to be willing to be learners themselves if they are going
to teach gifted students because these students will keep pushing until they
have the answer they desire. It is what their nature demands of them and, as
educators; this should influence our decision as to whether we want be the
teacher of the cluster of gifted students (Gallagher, 1985, p. 167).
In their book Able, Gifted and Talented, Bates and Munday (2005)
described teachers of the gifted in London, England. They referred to a
38
national policy there called the National Curriculum that has led to
teachers teaching basic content versus risk taking in the classroom. This
could be compared to the standards based curriculum we live by in
California, in which we are prescribed to cover a certain number of standards
each year in each content area leaving little room for deviation for enrichment
and acceleration. The students are tested on these snippets of knowledge
and the scores are reported to the school, parents, community, and state and
federal government. This kind of pressure is an influence on the type of
teaching that is occurring in our mixed ability classrooms. Bates and Munday
go on to say that it has caused a sense if disempowerment among teachers
and has caused them to question what they know are good teaching
strategies in favor of teacher directed lessons. These lessons do not allow
students to be active learners in their classroom or to employ overarching
skills of creativity and problem solving (Bates & Munday, 2005, p. 39).
Tharp and Gallimore (1988), in their book Rousing Minds to Life,
described reasons why lessons are not more student centered in our
schools.
Conditions in which the teacher can be sufficiently aware of the
child’s actual, in-flight performing, are too seldom in classrooms
organized, equipped, and staffed in the typical American pattern,
because there are too many children for each teacher, as well as
too little time for interaction, conversation, and joint activity among
teacher and children (p. 80).
39
Teachers of the gifted must balance these things in a mixed ability
classroom in order to meet the individual needs of the students and identify
which strategies to use specifically with their gifted students. Are these
factors an issue for these teachers, or do they cite other rationale for using or
not using good principles for a differentiated education?
Renzulli and Reis (1998) cited problems facing our schools and
teachers which impeded their ability to differentiate instruction and provide
learning opportunities for gifted students is a trend in decreasing difficulty in
the most widely used textbooks in recent decades. “Textbooks have not only
decreased in difficulty, but also incorporate a large percentage of repetition to
facilitate learning” (Renzulli & Reis, p. 63). If the textbook is the main source
of teacher planning then our gifted students are facing repetitive work that
does not engage them in novel tasks requiring problem-solving and
creativity. There is a
Mismatch between the difficulty of the textbooks, the repetition of
curricular materials in these texts, and the needs of our high
achieving and high ability learners. These students may spend
much of their time in school practicing skills and studying content
they already know (Renzulli & Reis, p. 63).
In her study of teacher planning practices and the influences on those
practices, Gail McCutcheon (1980) found that the textbook was still one of
the largest influences on what learning experiences teachers planned for
their students. While they considered multiple sources of information, they
centered their decisions less on individual student needs and learning
40
objectives, a model that is consistently taught and supported in our school
system. She suggested that teachers should have the opportunity to learn
new ways to plan lessons and examine learning materials for strengths and
weaknesses. She also proposed that teachers have opportunities to reflect
on their choices for curriculum and instruction in their classroom to analyze
their motivation for teaching various lessons and to consider what the
important factors are that should be affecting their planning practices.
This study examined which rationales teachers choose when
explaining why they give priority or assign value to a particular teaching
method which gave further information on influences in teacher decision-
making.
Student Development and Perceptions
Students in mixed ability classrooms receive instruction in a variety of
ways and may interpret this instruction in equally varied ways. This can
affect how they see themselves as learners in the classroom and their view
of the instruction may differ from what the teacher intended. This can also be
influenced by their developmental stage. This section will explore child
development and other influences on student self-perceptions.
Erik Erikson (1963) defined the stage of development in which
students are in school as the Industry vs. Inferiority age. During this age
children learn to master the more formal skills of life including relating with
41
peers, progressing from free play to structured play and mastering school
subjects such as social studies, reading and arithmetic (Child Development
Institute, 2008). Erikson (1963) stated that a child in this age can become an
eager unit of a productive situation, and that the completion of a productive
situation becomes the goal over the whim and wishes of play (p. 259).
Erikson also stated that, “School seems to represent a culture all by itself,
with its own goals and limits, its achievements and disappointment” (p. 259).
He concluded that at this stage the danger is in the child forming a sense of
inadequacy and inferiority if he despairs of his skills or his status among his
partners. Rayner (2001) summarized Erikson by stating that Erikson argued
that the self was a fluid construct which is very susceptible to the
environment, and prone to change. In this age, the school environment can
influence the self-concept of a child. Rayner continued on to say, therefore,
that a person who developed a competence for dealing with this environment
would in turn build a corresponding level of self-esteem. Green and Piel
(2002) summarized Erikson’s theory by stating that parents, teachers, and
other adults in a child’s life can provide worthwhile and meaningful activities
to help foster a sense of industry in a child. However, if a child experiences
repeated failures in these endeavors they will instead develop a sense of
failure and inferiority. This demonstrates the influence that teachers and
school can have on the development of a child’s self-perception.
42
In their study of perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms,
Gentry, Rizza, and Owen (2002) investigated the relationship between how
students perceive classroom activities and what teachers reported doing in
their classrooms in terms of challenge and choice and whether gifted
students and typical students differed in their perceptions. They found that
what teachers reported they offered to and for students was not what
students actually experienced in the classroom. In other words what
teachers think is happening in the classroom is not validated by students,
indicating that teacher statements must be interpreted carefully when asked
about programming in their classroom and that teachers need to make
explicit efforts to offer choices and challenge in the classroom. “Teachers
should recognize that their perception of classroom choice and challenges
may well differ from those of their students” (Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002, p.
152). Additionally, Gentry et al. (2002) found that no significant differences
occurred between the perceptions of gifted and typical students when they
were in a regular school setting. In his book, A Place Called School,
Goodlad (1984) states that,
It is reasonable to expect the teacher to be a key factor in the
schooling process; and indeed our data showed that students’
perceptions of their teachers’ interest in them as persons were related
to their satisfaction in the classroom (pp. 167-168).
He went on to say that teachers showed different levels of
effectiveness at different times and that teachers were only one part of an
43
array of factors that made up the quality of school life for a student
including a school’s sense of mission, the principal, central office policies and
directives, parental input and collaboration, school traditions, and faculty
stability and student population, among others.
Carol Dweck (2000) examined how students’ self-perceptions are
shaped by the messages we as adults give them on a daily basis. Contrary
to popular practices of positive rewards and praise for expected behavior,
she advocated for being honest with students in order to increase their self-
esteem and self-perceptions. One way to do this was by offering them
meaningful activities that were challenging and internally rewarding. She
stated that, “self-esteem is something students experience when they are
striving to master something new…it is something we can facilitate, and by
doing so we help ensure that challenge and effort are things that enhance
self-esteem” (Dweck, 2000, p. 129).
Dweck (2002) also defined two types of self-theories regarding
intelligence: entity theory and incremental theory. In entity theory, one
believes that their intelligence is fixed and there is little one can do to change
it so when a task appears challenging or beyond one’s intelligence they shy
away from it. Incremental theory conversely advocates that abilities may
differ, but intelligence is malleable and can be changed through effort. When
one has an incremental view of oneself, they take on challenging tasks more
readily and value the learning involved in a task even if they may not be
44
successful at the task. Nancy Robinson (2002), in referencing Dweck’s
research, stated, “Gifted children encounter many traps that put them at
greater risk for seeing their abilities as fixed” (p. 65). In school, many of the
tasks can be mastered at a first attempt and because the work is easy that
makes them feel smart. They then learn that they should be able to master
new material with minimal effort. This can have detrimental effects on their
self-perceptions and cause them to become underachievers or see
themselves as being at the limit of their abilities. Nancy Robinson (2002)
used the term self-concept interchangeably with self-confidence, self-
perceptions, and self-efficacy. She stated that gifted children in general
exhibit more positive self-concepts than non-gifted peers in the school setting
versus social or self-satisfaction. Teachers needed to foster this initial
positive self-concept by rewarding effort toward appropriate intellectual
activities according to Robinson (2002), which enabled them to maintain a
positive self-concept.
Hoge and Renzulli (1991) performed a review of research evidence
regarding gifted students’ self-concepts. They reported on eighteen of the
studies comparing gifted and non-gifted children in terms of self-concept
measures. In nine of the studies the gifted sample of students reported
significantly higher self-concept scores relative to the control sample. Six of
the studies reported no significant differences between gifted and
comparison samples in self-concept. Three studies reported mixed results
45
with none of the researchers reporting significantly lower general self-
concept scores for gifted students. In the conclusion of their research, they
stated that the gifted group of students as a group showed no major deficits
in self-esteem.
This study examined student self-perceptions in relation to teacher
choices for differentiated curriculum and instruction to see if a significant
relationship exists between the two.
Cluster Grouping
Karen Rogers (2002) defined cluster grouping as,
The practice of identifying the top five to eight academically
talented (or intellectually gifted) students at a grade level and
placing them in the same classroom at that grade level with a
teacher best suited and qualified to work with gifted students (p.
224).
She also identified students most likely to benefit from cluster grouping as
those who process and achieve well above most others at their current grade
level, are academically motivated, prefer not to work at a fast pace, and like
academic work.
Cluster grouping is synonymous with within-class grouping. Rogers
(2002) described this as a separate grouping strategy from cluster grouping
while James Kulik (1992) defined within-class grouping in a similar fashion to
cluster grouping. Both acknowledged within-class grouping as dividing a
class into smaller groups or subgroups for specific activities or purposes.
46
Rogers (2002) indicated that for students, the difference between within-
class grouping and cluster grouping was that students in within-class
groupings would need to prefer to work at a fast pace to be a candidate for
within-class groupings but the rest of the characteristics are the same;
processing and achieving well, academically motivated and likes academic
work (p. 237). Kulik (1992) found in his meta-analysis of research on
grouping strategies that within-class groupings had positive academic effects
for gifted children. Kulik and Kulik (1992) explained that two aspects of
within- class grouping made them interesting. The first was that within-class
groupings by nature involved differentiating instruction and that they did not
involve assigning students to different classrooms, which can interrupt a
child’s school day. They reported that out of eleven studies they analyzed
nine reported higher overall achievement levels for students in within-class
groupings. Rogers (2002) indicated that within-class grouping and cluster
grouping had been shown to have positive effects on student achievement.
She stated that one benefit was that the gifted child in a cluster grouped
class would have a chance for interaction with intellectual peers with similar
abilities, while having daily time with children of varying abilities (p. 227).
In her study of a school implementing cluster grouping compared to a
control school, Marcia Gentry (1999) concluded that a total school cluster
grouping program could lead to teachers’ recognition of higher achieving
students, have a positive effect on student achievement, and influence
47
teachers’ classroom practices. She also stated that school districts should
consider cluster grouping on the basis that if high achieving students are
placed with a teacher that has the ability and willingness to meet the needs
of gifted students then their needs are more likely to be met than if the gifted
students are dispersed among several heterogeneous classrooms (pp. 61-
62).
Gifted students and their teachers have a unique relationship in a
heterogeneous classroom. The participants in this study were teachers or
students in heterogeneous classrooms with varying numbers of clustered,
identified gifted students. This study examined teachers’ choices in a
heterogeneous classroom and the affect those choices had on students’
perceptions of themselves as students and how they perceived the teacher
views them as learners in the classroom.
48
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The California Department of Education GATE Standards (2005)
established that gifted students need differentiated opportunities for learning
commensurate with the gifted students’ particular abilities and talents. They
also need instructional elements that assist gifted and talented pupils to
develop self-generating problem-solving abilities to expand their awareness
of choices for satisfying contributions in his or her environment (p. 6). There
are several program choices outlined by the California Department of
Education (CDE) for educating gifted students. One of those program
choices is cluster grouping. Cluster Grouping is defined by the CDE (2005)
as when “Pupils are grouped within a regular classroom setting and receive
appropriately differentiated activities from the regular classroom teacher”
(p.13). The students in this study have been placed in mixed ability
classrooms as part of a cluster group of gifted students. Tomlinson (1999)
writes,
Today’s teachers still contend with the essential challenge of the one-
room schoolhouse: how to reach out effectively to students who span
the spectrum of learning readiness, personal interests, culturally
shaped ways of seeing and speaking of the world, and experiences in
that world (p. 1).
While teachers have been trained on methods to differentiate
curriculum and instruction in heterogeneous classrooms, individual teachers
49
have a range of rationales to differentiate for their students as well as
varying degrees of implementation of differentiation strategies. Tomlinson
(1999) acknowledged that there was no one right way to differentiate for
students and that teachers had to craft learning in ways that were a good
match for their teaching style as well as for the needs of the learners in their
classroom. She contended that most teachers modified some of their
instruction, some of the time. But, according to Tomlinson, despite new
educational knowledge, classrooms have not dramatically changed in the last
100 years. “We still assume that a child of a given age is enough like all
other children of the same age that he or she should traverse the same
curriculum in the same fashion with all other students of that age” (p. 22).
This study examined the relationship between teacher’s choices for
teaching methods to differentiate curriculum and instruction and how those
choices affected both the self-perceptions of the gifted and non-gifted
students in their mixed ability classroom. It was anticipated that data from
the study would provide a greater understanding of how teachers’ choices
can affect a learner’s self-perception. In addition, it examined how teacher
choices give learners varying impressions of how the teacher perceives them
as a learner. A major goal of the education of students as stated in the
Gifted and Talented Education Program Resource Guide (California
Department of Education, 2005) is to design programs for gifted learners that
include elements to help gifted students develop realistic, healthy self-
50
concepts (p. 7). This study yielded data analysis that related teacher
choices to self-concepts in gifted and non-gifted students in an effort to
shape future teacher choices in classrooms where differentiation of
instructional and curricular designs are imperative.
The population of this study was teachers that participated in Federal
Javits Grant S206A040072 designed to develop teacher expertise in order to
raise the achievement of culturally, linguistically and economically diverse
gifted students, increase the identification of diverse gifted and potentially
gifted students and to improve the overall quality of instruction in
heterogeneous classrooms. The teachers were participants in the Javits
Grant Project for two years. The Javits Grant Project focused on using
models of teaching in order to teach effectively differentiated curriculum. The
teacher participants were trained to be competent in teaching advanced
content to be appropriately challenging to gifted students and to use a variety
of researched models of teaching. The students in these teachers’ classes
completed survey items 9 and 10 from the All About Me survey (Appendix B)
to relate their perceptions of themselves and how the teacher saw them in
the classroom to the choices their teacher made regarding assigning value or
priority to teaching strategies and choosing a rationale for doing so.
51
Conceptual Model
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model for this study which includes
the model for the triangulation of data. From the existing data collected from
Dr. Sandra Kaplan’s Javits Grant Project this study analyzed teacher choices
for curriculum and instructional strategies and the rationales or reasons the
teachers selected for their choices. Then six of the teacher participants in
the Javits Grant Project were interviewed in order to collect data on their
choices for curricular and instructional strategies based on the context of
classroom composition. This interview data was also related to their
rationales or reasons for their choices as well as data collected form student
surveys of the six interviewed teachers.
Research Questions
1. Which curriculum and instructional strategies do teachers choose for
gifted students?
2. What rationales do teachers attribute to their curriculum and
instructional strategies for gifted students?
3. What is the relationship between gifted and non-gifted students’ self-
perceptions in a heterogeneous classroom and the teachers’ choices
of curriculum and instructional strategies?
4. How is the teacher’s selection of appropriate curriculum for the gifted
affected by the context of class composition?
52
Figure 1. Conceptual Model for the Study
Teacher Data on
Instructional
Strategies They Most
Value
Related to Choices for
Rationales that Are
Prescribed Through the
Literature
Teacher Data on
Instructional
Strategies They
Most Value Based
on Class
Composition
Related to Student
Choices for Self-
perceptions in
Heterogeneous
Classrooms
53
Nature of the Study
This study analyzed quantitative and qualitative data derived from
surveys and interview protocols in order to determine the relationship
between teacher choices for differentiated curriculum and instruction and
students’ self-perceptions as learners in the classroom. In addition, the study
examined how gifted and non-gifted students perceived the teacher saw
them as a learner in a mixed ability classroom. This was, therefore, a mixed-
methods study that incorporated a secondary analysis of quantitative data
from a Javits Grant Project titled, “Using Models of Teaching to Improve
Student Achievement,” and qualitative analysis of interviews from a sample
of participants in that study and a quantitative analysis of a survey of their
students. The quantitative data was collected using a survey titled “Teacher
Questionnaire” (Appendix A). The Teacher Questionnaire was given to the
experimental group of teachers that received training through Javits Grant
S206A040072 as well as a control group of teachers that had not received
this training. This data revealed relationships between teacher choices and
rationales for their choices based on having received the training and not
received the training to establish if participation in the grant project had
affected teacher choices for curriculum and instructional strategies. The
qualitative interview data yielded information regarding how class
composition altered teacher’s choices and how they described the rationales
for their choices when given an open-ended question instead of a forced
54
choice format for choosing a rationale. The interview data was compared
to the data obtained from each teacher’s student surveys regarding their self-
perceptions in the classroom. The combination of the secondary analysis of
existing data, teacher interviews and student surveys resulted in the
triangulation of data necessary to strengthen a study of mixed methods.
Triangulation means using several kinds of methods or data (Patton). Patton
stated that, “Because each method reveals different aspects of empirical
reality, multiple methods of data collection and analysis provide more grist for
the research mill” (p. 556).
The Teacher Questionnaire was given to teachers of mixed ability
classrooms that participated in the Javits Grant project, which focused on
studying models of teaching and their affect on achievement with gifted
students. The teachers ranged in age, experience, affiliation to gifted
education, and the types of students they served. The teachers taught
grades 2-5 and came from four districts in Southern California, including Los
Angeles Unified School District, Brawley School District, Santa Ana Unified
School District, and Oceanside School District. The teachers volunteered to
be part of the study and committed to administering various assessments,
videotaping themselves, being observed while teaching specific lessons
using the models of teaching, and completing surveys throughout the study.
The Teacher Questionnaire contained multiple items. This study focused on
Section III of the Teacher Questionnaire wherein teachers selected which
55
curriculum and instructional strategy they most valued, or gave priority to,
and the rationale for making that choice because those items specifically
related to the research questions of the study.
The student survey was given to both gifted and non-gifted students in
the six classrooms of the teachers that were interviewed. This study
examined specifically at the classroom units individually to see whether
teacher choices directly affected the student self-perceptions in their own
classroom. The study then compared the responses of the gifted students
and the responses of the non-gifted students to determine if there were
notable areas in similarities or differences in student perceptions of self as
learners and how they perceived the teacher saw them as learners. The
data was reported by teacher and designation of students as gifted and non-
gifted. Intact classroom data was assessed to define the students’
responses to their own teacher’s choices for differentiated or traditional
lessons based on class composition.
In addition to the surveys, on-site interviews of teachers were
conducted to validate and determine relationships in the data regarding
teacher choices of curricular methods to differentiate curriculum and
instruction based on class composition. Teachers were presented with four
different class compositions: (1) a heterogeneous classroom with a defined
and assigned cluster group of gifted students, (2) a heterogeneous
classroom with no identified gifted students, (3) a heterogeneous classroom
56
with some assigned gifted students, and (4) a homogeneous classroom
with all gifted students. For each class composition they selected from a set
of lessons, one based on traditional teaching methods and the other based
on a differentiated teaching methods, to identify which lesson would be more
appropriate for the specific class composition. Each lesson set contained
one lesson example that describes a lesson that uses one or more
instructional strategies for differentiation including concepts of depth,
complexity, novelty, acceleration, universal concepts and big ideas. The
other lesson description was a more traditional lesson format that contained
the traditional standards based core components and teaching strategies.
Table 1 describes the lesson cards and their components. The interview
data is related to the student survey data to explore a possible relationship
between classroom compositions and teachers’ choices for teaching
methods that reinforced differentiated curriculum and instruction to student
self-perceptions.
57
Table 1. Description of Lesson Cards for Teacher Interviews
Card Subject Core Standard
Differentiation
I Language Arts 3.0 Literary Response
and Analysis
Thinking Skill:
Relate
Depth/Complexity:
Point of View
Prove with Evidence
II Language Arts 3.0 Literary Response
and Analysis
III Mathematics 2.0 Students Identify
and Describe the
Attributes of Common
Figures in the Plane
and of Common
Objects in Space
IV Mathematics 2.0 Students Identify
and Describe the
Attributes of Common
Figures in the Plane
and of Common
Objects in Space
Thinking Skill:
Compare
Relate
Depth/Complexity:
Details
Prove with Evidence
Trends
V Science Life Science Standard
2
VI Science Life Science Standard
2
Thinking Skill:
Critical Thinking
Differentiate
Depth/Complexity:
Big Idea
VII Social Studies 3.1 Students describe
the physical and
human geography and
use maps, tables,
graphs, photographs,
and charts to organize
information about
people, places, and
environments in a
spatial context.
Thinking Skill:
Critical Thinking
Relate
Support
Depth/Complexity:
Details
Patterns
Big Idea
VIII Social Studies 3.1 Students describe
the physical and
human geography and
use maps, tables,
graphs, photographs,
and charts to organize
information about
people, places, and
environments in a
spatial context.
58
Study Population
There were three sets of subjects in this study. The first set was
comprised of the experimental and control group of teachers that participated
in the U.S. Department of Education Javits Grant project related to models of
teaching to affect the academic achievement of gifted students. The second
set of subjects in this study was the gifted students in each teacher’s
classroom that received instruction from their teacher in a heterogeneous
classroom. The third set of subjects was the non-gifted students in each
mixed ability classroom. The subjects worked or attended school in one of
four school districts: Los Angeles Unified School District, Santa Ana Unified
School District, Oceanside Unified School District, and Brawley Elementary
School District. The districts were selected because of common
characteristics: urban settings, serving students with low socioeconomic
status, participation in Federal Title I programs, having approved GATE plans
with the California Department of Education, students and teachers were in
grades 2-5 and were in heterogeneous classrooms with clustered GATE
students.
The teacher population was comprised of 88.7% females. The mean
year of teaching experience was 14.7 and the mean years for teaching gifted
students was identified as 7.92. The student population of the entire Javits
Grant Project consisted of 837 students with 334 being identified gifted
students according to California State or district guidelines. Six of the
59
experimental group teachers and the students in their class served as the
population for the interview and then the student survey. Of the students
surveyed 76 were identified gifted and 61 were not identified gifted. The
teacher interviewed participants who were chosen by Dr. Kaplan as
members of her Javits Grant Project that represented various grade levels of
teachers in one urban school district. These teachers had identified gifted
students in their class. The interview participants were also selected based
on proximity to the researcher.
Instrumentation
Three instruments were used in this study; a Teacher Questionnaire, a
student survey, and an interview protocol which includes stimulus cards in
order to address the four research questions.
Teacher Questionnaire
The Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix A) was given to teachers that
participated in the Javits Grant project, both the experimental group receiving
the trainings and the control group. This questionnaire was used to address
Research Questions 1 and 2. Section III of the Teacher Questionnaire asked
those teachers to select the curriculum and instructional strategies they
assigned priority or value to and then to select the rationale for that choice in
a forced-choice format. Smyth, Dillman, Christian, and Stern (2006)
60
conducted a study of question types. Their findings suggested that the
forced-choice question
format encouraged deeper processing of response
options, and respondents endorsed more options and took longer
to answer
in the forced-choice format than in the check-all
format. The teaching
methods choices included questions on grouping strategies, basic skills
versus critical thinking skills, and teaching methods based on the students
being served versus established state and district standards and curriculum.
Teachers were also asked to choose between curriculum and instructional
strategies specifically designed for gifted students and more traditional
instructional strategies. The rationale choices or reasons that teachers could
cite for their curriculum and instructional strategies included: expediency
(time), previous experience dictates this works best, expectations of the
district or school, just because, challenge to students, relationship to
expectations or needs of the gifted, and affects all learners in the classroom.
Student Survey
The student survey was given to the students, both gifted and non-
gifted, in each interviewed teacher’s class in order to address Research
Question 3. The students answered Items 9 and 10 from the “All About Me
and School” survey used in the Javits Grant Project (Appendix B). The first
item asked them to choose how they perceived the teacher thought of them
as a student in the classroom, and the second item asked them how they
61
thought of themselves as a student in the classroom. The students chose
between pictures and descriptions of: (1) a student that is disinterested or not
paying attention, (2) a student who is a good worker and good student, (3) a
student that feels invisible, or (4) a student that is interested, eager and
curious. The answer choices were similar for both items. The survey
instruments being used had been administered for more than eight years and
have indicators of reliability and validity.
Interview Protocol
For the interview, teachers were presented with two sets of visual
prompts and were interviewed using the interview protocol in Appendix C.
During the interview teachers were presented first with a set of cards
representing various classroom compositions for both primary and upper
elementary classrooms (Appendix D). The cards pictorially represented
classes with gifted and non-gifted students in varying numbers similar to
typical heterogeneous classrooms. The teacher interviewees were also
presented with sets of cards with descriptions of lessons written in each of
the four major subject areas; English Language Arts, Mathematics, Social
Studies and Science. Teachers were asked to select which lesson they
would teach for each class composition in each subject area. They were
then asked why they made that choice. Answers to the “why” question were
coded based on the same criteria for rationale used on the Teacher
62
Questionnaire. This type of interviewing is referred to as cognitive
interviewing which is a new interviewing strategy. Beatty and Willis (2007)
defined cognitive interviewing as the administration of a survey while
collecting additional verbal information about the survey responses.
Research Procedure
This study is part of the United States Department of Education Grant
#S206A040072 which is part of the Javits Act for Gifted Education. The
grant contained three basic goals: (1) to educate teachers of gifted students
in mixed ability classrooms to utilize differentiated curriculum and instruction
and models of teaching to affect the education of gifted students; (2) to
increase the academic achievement of students of diversity through
differentiated instructional strategies; (3) is to uncover or identify more
students as gifted that come from various backgrounds, including diverse
populations.
The two survey instruments used were titled, “All About Me and
School” (Appendix B) for the students and “Teacher Questionnaire”
(Appendix A) for the teachers. The “All About Me survey” yielded information
regarding student perceptions of how they thought the teachers saw them as
student in the classroom and how they saw themselves as learners in that
classroom. The purpose of Section III of the “Teacher Questionnaire” was to
63
provide information relative to teachers’ utilization of teaching methods
and to determine their philosophical rationales for using their chosen
strategies.
The interview subjects were chosen by Dr. Sandra Kaplan based on
proximity to the researcher. Teachers were also chosen because they
represented a variety of grade levels and a variety of teaching experiences.
Interviews were conducted individually and tape-recorded for data collection
purposes. Each interview subject selected which lesson they would teach in
each subject area based on class composition presented and then were
asked why they made that choice. The responses or rationales were then
classified into the same established categories for rationales listed on the
Teacher Questionnaire.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted with an expert panel to review the
interview prompts used in the interview process. The expert panel consisted
of five educators well versed in teaching methods for differentiating
curriculum and instruction for gifted students. They were presented with the
class composition cards and the lesson sample cards and were asked to
discern which lessons are appropriate for each group based on whether the
lessons meant for gifted students contain differentiation factors such as
depth, complexity, novelty, and acceleration. These four components are
64
articulate in the GATE standards (California Department of Education,
2005). The results from the pilot study showed that the differentiated lesson
was easily identifiable in each subject area. The pilot study also revealed
that the original interview protocol confused some participants. The protocol
was then revised slightly in order to facilitate teacher understanding. This
provided content validity to the study because it will verify that the
differentiated teaching methods in each lesson were identifiable and valid.
Data Reduction
The first research question sought to reveal how teacher choices for
differentiated instructional strategies and their own rationales for those
choices were affected by participation in training regarding differentiation and
models of teaching through the Javits Grant project. Therefore, this data
related experimental trained teacher responses for curriculum and
instructional methods to the control group of teachers not trained through the
grant project. Both groups of teacher responses for the rationales associated
with their choices were also compared. Results yielded a pattern among
teacher choices and the rationale for their choices based on participation in
the Javits Grant Project. To answer Research Question 2, the teacher
rationales selected by the teachers on the Teacher Questionnaire were
compared to determine if a relationship existed between the rationales of the
experimental teachers and the control group of teachers.
65
To address the third research question results from the student
survey and the teacher interviews were compared. First, the response of the
teachers were analyzed to detect a pattern among all interview participants
and then individually to review each teacher’s choices. The interviewed
teachers’ student survey results were then compared to their teachers’
responses for differentiated or traditional lessons to determine if a
relationship existed. The student survey results of gifted and non-gifted
students were compared to see if there was a difference between student
responses based on being identified gifted or not. A Chi-square analysis was
performed on the student survey data. Chi-square tests are used to analyze
categorical data such as the frequency data that will be yielded from the
student surveys (Howell, 2004). The chi-square analysis sought to
determine if there was a significant relationship regarding students self-
perceptions based on being gifted or non-gifted and based on their
perceptions of the teacher’s views of them and their perceptions of
themselves. The results of the teacher interviews compared to student
responses on the survey were then examined as a whole.
The information obtained from the teacher interviews was then
analyzed to determine how class composition affected a teacher’s choice for
curriculum and instruction, as well as how they explained their choices for
differentiated or traditional lessons by answering an open-ended question as
to why they made a particular lesson choice for a particular class
66
composition. For example when a teacher chose the differentiated lesson
for a class with a few gifted students she then was asked why she made that
choice. The rationales or reasons were then coded to the same rationale
choices the teachers were given on the Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix A).
Finally, The results obtained from the larger study population of
experimental teachers were related to the responses of the interviewed
teachers to compare the frequency with which differentiated curriculum and
instructional strategies were chosen by each group. The interviewed
teachers were participants in both groups, having been surveyed as part of
the Javits Grant project and then interviewed in this study.
67
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This study was a mixed methods study conducted in two parts to
answer the following pertinent research questions regarding curriculum and
instructional choices for gifted students:
1. Which curriculum and instructional strategies do teachers choose for
gifted students?
2. What rationales do teachers attribute to their choices of curriculum
and instructional strategies for gifted students?
3. What is the relationship between gifted and non-gifted students’ self-
perceptions in a heterogeneous classroom and the teachers’ choices
of curriculum and instructional strategies?
4. How is the teacher’s selection of appropriate curriculum for the gifted
affected by the context of class composition?
The first two questions were addressed through a secondary analysis
of existing data from Javits Grant Study S206A040072 conducted by Dr.
Sandra Kaplan. In this study, 44 teachers were systematically trained to use
models of teaching to differentiate curriculum and instruction for gifted
students in heterogeneous classrooms. This group represented the
experimental group of teachers. There were seven teachers that completed
68
the Teacher Questionnaire but were not trained through the Javits Grant
Project. These teachers represented the control group. All of the teachers
came from four different urban, rural, and suburban school districts: Los
Angeles Unified School District, Oceanside School District, Santa Ana
Unified School District, and Brawley School District. The total population
included 47 female and 4 male teachers and the students in their classes
during the 2006-2007 school year. The mean years of teaching experience
is 14.57 years with a standard deviation of 9.214. As a part of this study the
teachers completed a survey titled “Teacher Questionnaire.” Section III of
the Teacher Questionnaire was the focus of this study which asked teachers
to choose which curricular or instructional strategies they most valued or
assigned priority. They were then asked to select a reason or rationale to
substantiate that choice. The first research question was addressed by
analyzing percentages of teachers’ choices for curriculum and instructional
strategies in order to compare the responses of the experimental group of
trained teachers and the control group who did not receive any treatment or
training. The second research question was addressed by conducting a
quantitative analysis using descriptive statistics to determine the reasons or
rationales the teachers stated represented their curriculum and instructional
choices. This quantitative analysis determined the influences of rationales or
reasons on teachers’ choices for curriculum and instructional strategies for
gifted and non-gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms.
69
The second part of the research addressed questions 3 and 4 of
the study. Question 3 sought to determine a relationship between teacher
choices regarding curriculum and instructional strategies and students’
perceptions of how they thought the teacher saw them as a student in the
classroom and how they perceived themselves as a student in their
classroom. To collect the data for this research question, on-site interviews
were completed for six of the teachers that participated in the Javits Grant
Project. The interviewer asked them to make lesson choices based on class
compositions appropriate for gifted students. During the site visit, the
students in each teacher’s class were given a survey containing items 9 and
10 from Dr. Sandra Kaplan’s study survey titled “All About Me and School”
(Appendix B). In this survey students were asked questions about their
perceptions of the classroom instruction, and of themselves. Items 9 and 10
of the survey asked the students to identify how they perceived themselves
as a student in the classroom and how they perceived the teacher thought of
them as a student in the classroom. The results of the interview and of the
student survey were then analyzed quantitatively as intact classroom data.
The purpose of this analysis was to establish significance in the relationship
between teacher choices for differentiated or traditional lessons and
students’ self-perceptions of the teacher’s thoughts of them and their
thoughts of themselves as a student in the classroom. The student data was
then tested for statistical significance using a chi square analysis of all
70
student respondents. A chi-square analysis also was conducted on each
group to test for significant differences in their responses of how they thought
the teacher saw them as a student in the classroom and how they saw
themselves as a student in the classroom.
Question 4 sought to establish a relationship between class
composition and teacher choices for standards-based differentiated or
traditional lessons. Site visits to the six teachers participating in the Javits
Grant project were conducted in order to collect data to address Research
Questions 3 and 4. These teachers were selected because of proximity to
the researcher and input from Dr. Kaplan. The teachers represented multiple
grade levels and various years of teaching experience and of teaching gifted
students so they represented a cross section of participants in the Javits
Grant Project. During these visits, the teachers were interviewed individually
in accordance with the Interview Protocol (Appendix C). The interview was
conducted by the teachers reading and reviewing four sets of two lessons in
the same subject area and related to the same standard. One lesson
contained elements of differentiation matched to the California GATE
standards while the other lesson was based on the core curriculum or
traditional standards-based content (California State Board of Education,
2005). Teachers were then presented with four different classroom
compositions and asked to select one of the subject area lessons that they
would teach to each classroom composition. These classroom compositions
71
were based on grouping strategies currently in use for gifted and non-
gifted students. Specifically, the teachers were asked to look at different
classroom compositions including three heterogeneous classrooms with
differing numbers of identified gifted students: a class with no identified gifted
students, a class with two or three gifted students (referred to as a few gifted
students), a class with an established cluster group of gifted students and a
homogeneous class of all identified gifted students. The teachers then
selected between two different lessons, differentiated or traditional, in each
subject: Math, English-Language Arts, Science and Social Studies, that were
based on the same content standards.
Theoretical Framework
As stated in Chapter 1, Vygotsky’s work in the zone of proximal
development is related to the concept of differentiation, particularly in the
areas of prompts of depth and complexity, universal concepts, big ideas and
learning across the disciplines. Vygotsky (1978) stated, “It has been shown
that learning in one area has very little influence on overall development” (p.
82). This is related to differentiated curriculum and instruction because
differentiation focuses on the individual learning needs of a student and
teaching them in ways that expand their current understandings of topics and
how they relate it to a larger theme or generalization. Using prompts of
depth and complexity, for example, teaches students to consider different
72
points of view, establish trends or patterns over time, consider a big idea
and the components that support that big idea. Differentiated curriculum
requires students to generalize themes and ideas across disciplines and to
connect topics using universal concepts such as power, change and
systems. Therefore learning is connected to different topics and is not
isolated into single topics or subject areas. By focusing on topics across
disciplines and using depth and complexity students are able to expand their
learning at their individual ability levels. Vygotsky also proposed that,
“Learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are
able to operate only when the child is interacting with people in his
environment and in cooperation with his peers” (p. 90). With proper
facilitation, children are able to reach tomorrow what they were not able to do
today through adult and peer interaction within their zone of proximal
development.
Findings
The findings in this study evidenced a relationship between teacher
training in curriculum and instructional differentiation and its affect on
teachers’ choices of curriculum and instructional strategies they select and
assign the most priority. This study revealed the impact that class
composition had on teacher choices for differentiated or traditional lessons
73
and the rationales teachers had for selecting a lesson based on class
composition.
To address the first research question regarding teachers’ choices of
curriculum and instructional strategies for gifted students, graphs depicting
the comparison between the responses of the experimental and control
groups of teachers on Section III of the Teacher Questionnaire were
developed. The items in Section III of the Teacher Questionnaire asked the
teacher to choose between differentiated and traditional curriculum and
instructional strategies in a dichotomous forced-choice format. The graphs in
each figure represent the selections of curriculum and instructional strategies
of the experimental and control groups. The findings for the first two
research questions are presented together. For each Teacher Questionnaire
Item a figure including a graph of the results comparing the responses of the
experimental and control group are presented followed by a narrative
analysis of the graph. The results of the rationale or reason associated with
that Teacher Questionnaire item are then presented in order to relate the
rationale directly to the Teacher Questionnaire item.
In Figure 2, Item 1 on the Teacher Questionnaire asked the teachers
to select between teaching their own lesson, that they created, or following
the teacher’s guide or prescribed curriculum given to them by their district.
74
Figure 2. Teacher Questionnaire Item 1
Teacher Questionnaire Item 1 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers that Chose Creating Your Own Lesson or Following the
Teacher's Guide or Prescribed Curriculum
82.5
17.5
54.5
45.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Own Lesson Teacher's Guide
Experimental
Control
Figure 2 represents the experimental and control teachers’ responses
to Item 1 on the Teacher Questionnaire. The experimental teachers more
often chose creating their own lesson while the control group of teachers was
closely distributed between teaching their own lesson and using the teacher’s
guide. This demonstrated that the teachers that had been trained most
valued creating their own lessons while 45.5% of the control group of
teachers chose to use the teacher’s guide of a textbook to direct their
instruction. McCutcheon (1980) found that to be the case in her study of
teacher planning where teachers stated that in Mathematics and Reading,
especially, they relied heavily on textbooks for the organization of subject
matter. Renzulli and Reis (1998) stated that recent research findings
suggest a mismatch between the repetition and lack of difficulty in textbooks
and the needs of advanced and gifted students. Advanced students benefit
75
from teachers that plan their own lessons instead of relying on textbooks
to drive their curriculum. As shown in Table 2 on (pg. 90), the rationales most
often selected by the experimental teachers were “affects all learners in the
classroom” at 37.5% and then “relationship to expectations or needs of the
gifted” at 20%. The control group of teachers most often chose “expectations
of the district, school, etc.” as the rationale for their instructional choice at
36.4% followed by “affects all learners” in the classroom at 27.3%.
Figure 3. Teacher Questionnaire Item 2
Teacher Questionnaire Item 2 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Teachers that Chose Teaching in Small Homogeneous Groups or Teaching
the Entire Heterogeneous Class
35.1
64.9
63.6
36.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Small Homogeneous Groups Entire Heterogeneous Class
Experimental
Control
Figure 3 represents item 2 on the Teacher Questionnaire and depicts
the teachers’ preferences for grouping patterns represented by teachers
selecting to teach either small homogeneous groups or the entire
heterogeneous class. Small homogeneous groups are made up of students
at similar levels, while teaching the entire heterogeneous class was a class
76
made up of students with various abilities with academic similarities and
differences. On this item, the experimental teachers most often chose to
teach the heterogeneous class as a whole while the control group more often
chose to teach in small homogeneous groups. Teaching small
homogeneous groups is a common teaching practice; however when asked
to choose which grouping pattern they assigned the most value or priority,
there were clear differences in the preferences of the experimental group
versus the control group. Kulik (1992) stated that elementary school
teachers often group students within a class into subgroups for specific
activities and purposes. Kulik and Kulik (1987) stated that separating
talented students into homogeneous groups enabled teachers to provide
learning opportunities that were not possible in more heterogeneous groups.
As shown in Table 2, the rationale most often chosen by the experimental
teachers was “affects all learners” at 55%. The control group also chose the
same rationale most often at 36.4% indicating their preference for small
homogeneous group teaching of students who share similar characteristics.
Small homogeneous groups help to address individual student needs more
easily which could have a positive affect on each student and, therefore,
benefits all students.
77
Figure 4. Teacher Questionnaire Item 3
Teacher Questionnaire Item 3 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
group Teachers that ChoseTeaching in Heterogeneous Small Groups or
Teaching the Whole Class Heterogeneous Group
21.1
78.9
18.2
81.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Small Heterogeneous Groups Entire Heterogeneous Class
Experimental
Control
In Figure 4, Teacher Questionnaire Item 3 shows no identifiable
pattern in the responses of either the control group or the experimental
group. The teacher responses indicated that neither group assigned value to
teaching small heterogeneous groups over teaching the entire
heterogeneous class. Small heterogeneous groups are groups of students
chosen to work together for criteria other than their instructional level, such
as cooperative groups of mixed ability. Both groups also most often selected
“affects all learners” as the rationale for their choice with the experimental
group at 53.7% and the control group at 40% as illustrated in Table 2.
78
Figure 5. Teacher Questionnaire Item 4
Teacher Questionnaire Item 4 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers that Chose Teaching Basic Skills Such As: Define, Identify,
Compare or Teaching Critical Thinking Skills Such As: Judging With
Criteria, Prove With Evidence
12.5
87.5
45.5
54.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Basic Skills Critical Thinking Skills
Experimental
Control
In Figure 5, Item 4 demonstrates the choices made by the
experimental group and the control group regarding differentiated versus
core curriculum elements. Critical thinking skills are those that use analytical
thinking for purposes of decision making. The experimental group chose
teaching students critical thinking skills as the curriculum method they
assigned the most value at 87.5%. The control group selected basic skills at
45.5% and teaching critical thinking skills at 54.5%. When asked to select a
rationale for their choice of curriculum and instructional strategy, the
experimental group of trained teachers’ rationales were closely aligned:
“challenge to students” at 37.5%, and “affects all learners” at 32.5% as
depicted in Table 2. The control group of teachers most often chose two
rationales: “affects all learners” at 30% and “related to the gifted” at 30%.
79
Figure 6. Teacher Questionnaire Item 5
Teacher Questionnaire Item 5 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
group Teachers That Chose Teaching Basic Facts and Concepts or
Teaching Universal Concepts and Big Ideas
26.3
73.7
54.5
45.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Basic Facts and Concepts Universal Concepts and Big
Ideas
Experimental
Control
Figure 6 illustrates the different responses between the experimental
and control groups related to teaching basic facts and concepts or universal
concepts and big ideas from Teacher Questionnaire Item 5. Universal
concepts and big ideas are ideas that connect isolated information in order to
enable learners to create meaning. The experimental group most often
selected teaching students universal concepts and big ideas (73.7%). The
control group’s choices were closely aligned with 54.5% having selected
teaching basic facts and concepts and 45.5% having selected teaching
universal concepts and big ideas. Tomlinson and McTighe (2006)
considered a basic facts approach to be a “ladder” model which they find to
be a flawed approach. The “ladder” approach assumes that students must
learn the important facts before they can address more abstract concepts of
80
a subject. In fact Tomlinson and McTighe (2006) contended that this was
actually harmful to struggling learners as well because they were not given
the opportunity to work on learning in a meaningful fashion because they
never show mastery of the lower rungs of the ladder. As shown in Table 3,
the experimental group chose two rationales at the same value (30.8%) for
their selection of teaching universal concepts and big ideas as the curriculum
and instructional strategy they most valued or gave priority. The two
rationales chosen by the experimental group were “challenge to students”
and “affects all learners;” both were selected at 30.8%. The control group
explained the rationale for their choices predominantly as “affects all
learners” at 36.4%.
Figure 7. Teacher Questionnaire Item 6
Teacher Questionnaire Item 6 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
group Teachers tTeaching Areas That Interest The Students and Meet Their
Needs and Abilities as Gifted Individuals or Teaching the Standards-Based,
Text Material, or District Curriculum
47.5
52.5
54.5
45.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Areas That Interest the Gifted Standards-Based
Experimental
Control
81
The graph in Figure 7 illustrates that the choices for curriculum
were more aligned for the experimental group and the control group than on
other Teacher Questionnaire items. By having selected “areas that interest
the gifted,” teachers stated their preference for considering the needs,
abilities, and interests of gifted students which parallel the strategies for
teaching gifted students outlined in the California Standards for the Gifted
(California State Board of Education, 2005). Figure 7 indicates that both
groups of teachers chose to teach lessons in areas that interest gifted
students and lessons that were standards-based at a relatively similar
percentage. Table 2 illustrates that both groups predominantly chose the
same rationale for their choice which was “expectation from the school,
district, etc.” The experimental group reported this rationale 47.5% of the
time, while the control group reported this rationale 45.5% of the time.
82
Figure 8. Teacher Questionnaire Item 7
Teacher Questionnaire Item 7 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers That Chose Teaching Traditional Knowledge in Each
Subject Area or Teaching Generalizations, Principles, Theories Across the
Disciplines
28.2
71.8
63.6
36.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Traditional Knowledge in
Subjects
Generalizations, Principles,
Theories Across the
Disciplines
Experimental
Control
Item 7 on the Teacher Questionnaire asked the teachers to select
between teaching traditional knowledge in each subject area or teaching
generalizations, principles and theories across the disciplines. Teaching
generalizations, principles and theories across the disciplines are defined
curriculum elements in the California Standards for Gifted students
(California State Board of Education, 2005). This question revealed that the
experimental group of teachers assigned value or gave priority to teaching
generalizations over teaching traditional knowledge and cited the rationale of
“affects all learners” (40%) as the reason for their choice as depicted in
Figure 8. The control group more often chose teaching traditional knowledge
in each subject area supported by two rationales: 36.4% selected “previous
experience dictates this works best” and 36.4% selected “affects all
learners.”
83
Figure 9. Teacher Questionnaire Item 8
Teacher Questionnaire Item 8 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers That Chose Teaching Many Different Topics Across the
Various Disciplines or Teaching in a Single Discipline
92.3
7.7
63.6
36.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Different Topics Across The
Disciplines
Single Discipline
Experimental
Control
Item 8 on the Teacher Questionnaire asked teachers to choose
between valuing or giving priority to teaching different topics across the
disciplines or teaching topics in a single discipline. By teaching topics across
the disciplines, teachers promote students’ abilities to develop meaning of
the material in more than one context. The experimental group
predominantly chose teaching topics across the disciplines, which is also
what the majority of control teachers chose but in a smaller proportion. The
experimental group of teachers cited the rationale for teaching across the
disciplines as “affects all learners” (41%) while the control group cited two
rationales predominantly: “affects all learners” (27.3%) and “district and
school expectations” (27.3%) as shown in Table 2.
84
Figure 10. Teacher Questionnaire Item 9
Teacher Questionnaire Item 9 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers That Chose Teaching Advanced Students or Teaching
Average Students or Teaching Struggling Learners
84.6
10.3
5.1
70
10
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Advanced and
Gifted Students
Average Students Struggling
Learners
Experimental
Control
Item 9 on the Teacher Questionnaire was the only item that asked the
teachers to choose between three choices on the forced-choice question
format. The three choices revealed the primary focus of their curriculum and
instructional strategies as teaching either advanced or gifted students,
average students or struggling learners. Both groups chose teaching
advanced and gifted students as their main focus. The experimental group
selected average students as their second preference and struggling
learners as their third preference as shown in Figure 10. Conversely, the
control group selected struggling learners as their second preference and
average students as their third preference. Both groups also selected the
same rationale most often for their choice of teaching advanced students as
85
“affects all learners” showing their belief that teaching to advanced and
gifted students would affect or benefit all students in the class. Renzulli and
Reis (1998) stated all of the changes taking place in our schools require
educators to examine a broad range of differentiated teaching techniques for
providing equitable instruction for all students. As shown in Table 2, the
experimental group selected “affects all learners” as their rationale at 41.5%
and the control group selected that rationale at 27.8%.
Figure 11. Teacher Questionnaire Item 10
Teacher Questionnaire Item 10 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers That Chose Teaching Single Subjects Separately or
Teaching All Subjects Connected to a Theme or Universal Concept
25.6
74.4
63.6
36.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Single Subjects Separately Subjects Connected to a Theme
or Universal Concept
Experimental
Control
Item 10 on the Teacher Questionnaire presents two choices for
curriculum and instructional strategies when working with students. The first
choice was to teach subjects separately, and the second to teach subjects
connected to a theme or universal concept in order to help students make
connections in their learning. The experimental group clearly assigned value
86
to teaching subjects connected to a theme or universal concept (74.4%)
versus teaching them independently (25.6%). The major selection of the
control group teachers (63.6%), as depicted in Figure 11, was to teach the
subjects separately. As shown in Table 2, the rationale given for the
experimental group’s choice was “affects all learners” (42.5%). The control
group selected “district and school expectations” as their rationale (36.4%)
for their choice.
Figure 12. Teacher Questionnaire Item 11
Teacher Questionnaire Item 11 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers That Chose Teaching Creative Thinking Skills Such As:
Redesign, Combine or Teaching Basic Skills Such As Compare, Idenitfy the
Main Idea
60.5
39.5
45.5
54.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Creative Thinking Skills Basic Skills
Experimental
Control
When the experimental and control teachers were asked if they gave
more priority to teaching creative thinking skills, such as redesign or
combine, or teaching basic skills, such as compare or identify the main idea,
on Item 11 of the Teacher Questionnaire, there was variance in the
responses between the two groups. The experimental group chose teaching
87
creative thinking skills at a higher rate than they chose basic skills. The
control group’s responses were divided between creative thinking skills at
45.5% and basic skills at 54.5%. As shown in Table 2 the experimental
group of trained teachers chose “affects all learners” as their main rationale
at 36.8% while the control group chose “affects all learners” and “district and
school expectations” equally at 27.3% for both rationales.
Figure 13. Teacher Questionnaire Item 12
Teacher Questionnaire Item 12 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers That Chose Teaching the Basic Prompts of Who, What,
Where, When, etc. to Seek Information or teaching the Prompts of Depth
and Complexity to Seek Information
7.7
92.3
45.5
54.5
0
20
40
60
80
100
Basic Prompts Prompts of Depth and
Complexity
Experimental
Control
Item 12 on the Teacher Questionnaire asked teachers to choose the
teaching prompt they assigned the most value to when constructing
curriculum. Teaching basic prompts is usually described as asking questions
using words such as who, what, and when to seek information. Teaching the
prompts of Depth and Complexity included prompts such as language of the
discipline, recognizing trends, and identifying patterns to seek information
88
(California State Board of Education, 2005). As illustrated in Figure 13,
the experimental group noticeably chose the differentiated curricular and
instructional method of using depth and complexity prompts, while the control
group was again divided by choosing either basic prompts or prompts of
depth and complexity. While the experimental group selected “affects all
learners” as their rationale (43.6%) the control group mainly selected “district
and school expectations” at 50% for their rationale as depicted in Table 2.
Figure 14. Teacher Questionnaire Item 13
Teacher Questionnaire Item 13 - Percentage of Experimental and Control
Group Teachers that Chose Teaching in Small Groups or Allowing Students
to Get Involved in a Self-Directed Independent Study
47.4
52.6
60
40
0
20
40
60
80
100
Small Groups Self-Directed Independent Study
Experimental
Control
The final item in Section III of the Teacher Questionnaire, Item 13,
asked teachers to choose between teaching in small groups or allowing
students to get involved in a self-directed independent study. On this item,
both groups of teachers reflected a similar range of responses. The
experimental teachers showed a preference for allowing students to get
89
involved in a self-directed independent study and the control group
showed a preference for teaching in small groups as depicted in Figure 14.
Both groups cited “affects all learners” as the main rationale for their choices
with the experimental group at 41% and the control group at 36.4% as
depicted in Table 2.
90
Table 2. Rationales of Teachers by Percentage
Rationales Expediency Previous
Experience
District,
School
Expectations
Just
Because
Challenge
to Students
Related
to Gifted
Affects
All
Learners
Experimental vs. Control Exp Cont Exp Cont Exp Cont Exp Cont Exp Cont Exp Cont Exp Cont
Own Lesson vs.
Teacher’s Guide
5.0%
0.0%
7.5%
0.0%
12.5%
36.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.75%
18.2%
20.0%
18.2%
37.5%
27.3%
Small Homogeneous vs.
Entire
Heterogeneous Class
22.5%
9.1%
5.0%
9.1%
0.0%
27.3%
0.0%
0.0%
7.5%
18.2%
10.0%
0.0%
55.0%
36.4%
Small Heterogeneous vs.
Entire
Heterogeneous Class
34.1%
10.0%
2.4%
10.0%
0.0%
30.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.3%
0.0%
2.4%
10.0%
53.7%
40.0%
Basic Skills vs.
Critical Thinking Skills
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
10.0%
2.5%
20.0%
0.0%
0.0%
37.5%
10.0%
22.5%
30.0%
32.5%
30.0%
Basic Concepts vs.
Universal Concepts
and Big Ideas
2.6%
9.1%
2.6%
9.%
12.8%
18.2%
2.6%
0.0%
30.8%
9.1%
17.9%
18.%
30.8%
36.4%
Areas of Interest/Need
for Gifted vs.
Standards-Based
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
9.%
47.5%
45.5%
7.5%
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
22.5%
27.3%
20.0%
9.1%
Traditional Knowledge vs.
Theories Across
Disciplines
2.5%
18.2%
20.0%
36.4%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
27.5%
0.0%
7.5%
9.1%
40.0%
36.4%
Across Disciplines vs.
Single Discipline
10.3%
9.1%
7.7%
9.1%
7.7%
27.3%
2.6%
0.0%
23.1%
18.2%
7.7%
9.1%
41.0%
27.3%
Advanced vs.
Average vs.
Struggling Students
0.0%
9.1%
2.4%
0.0%
7.3%
18.25
%
4.9%
9.1%
17.1%
18.2%
26.8%
18.2%
41.5%
27.8%
Single Subjects vs.
Subjects Connected
to a Theme
7.5%
18.2%
10.0%
9.1%
7.5%
36.4%
2.5%
0.0%
17.5%
0.0%
12.5%
9.1%
42.5%
27.3%
Creative Thinking vs.
Basic Skills
2.6%
0.0%
2.6%
18.2%
21.1%
27.3%
0.0%
9.1%
28.9%
18.2%
7.9%
0.0%
36.8%
27.3%
Basic Prompts vs.
Prompts of Depth
and Complexity
0.0%
0.0%
5.1%
0.0%
2.6%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
35.9%
10.0%
12.8%
20.0%
43.6%
20.0%
Small Groups vs.
Independent Study
7.7%
9.1%
10.3%
0.0%
2.6%
18.2%
0.0%
0.0%
17.9%
18.2%
20.5%
18.2%
41.0%
36.4%
91
Table 2 illustrates the cumulative responses of the experimental and
control groups of teachers when asked to select a rationale to support their
choice of curriculum and instructional strategies on Section III of the Teacher
Questionnaire. The rationale options presented to the teachers included:
expediency (time), previous experience dictates this works best, expectations
of the district, school, etc., just because…I don’t have a reason for the
choice, challenge to students, relationship to expectations or needs of the
gifted, and affects all learners in the classroom. Hertzog (2003) stated that
the relationship between instruction and students motivation is dynamic, and
teachers need to see heir instruction as critical variables affecting student
achievement. It is important for teachers to consider their rationales or
reasons for choosing a particular curriculum or instructional strategy.
As indicated in Table 2, the experimental group of teachers
predominantly selected “affects all learners” as their rationale for their choice
of curriculum and instructional strategy with some variance in choosing
“challenge to students,” and on only one item selecting “school and district
expectations” as their main choice. The data reflecting the rationales of the
experimental group of teachers suggested that using differentiated
curriculum and instructional strategies appeared to them to have a positive
affect on all learners in the classroom. This was substantiated in the teacher
interviews as well, reported in Table 25. In their position paper,
Differentiating the Core Curriculum and Instruction to provide Advanced
92
Learning Opportunities, the California Department of Education and the
California Association for the Gifted (1994) stated that, “A differentiated core
curriculum in the hands of talented, dedicated teachers can help all students
be what they should be—and in many cases, what they may never have
even dreamed they could be” (p. 3). This validates “affects all learners” as
the rationale for choosing differentiated curriculum and instructional
strategies. Renzulli and Reis (1998) stated that although there are practical
considerations in teacher planning and implementation, the ultimate criteria
in instructional decisions should be the degree to which they can increase
academic challenge and the extent to which they meet the individual needs
of students.
The control group of teachers selected very different choices for
rationales as depicted in Table 2 than did the experimental group. The
control group had predominant choices that they selected multiple times but
with more variety in their choices than the experimental group. They more
frequently selected “district and school expectations” as one of their
rationales for instructional or curricular decisions than the experimental
group. This choice was the most frequently selected for six of the thirteen
items. The control group also chose “affects all learners” at a high rate,
similar to the experimental group, on nine out of thirteen items. On only one
item, the control group chose “previous experience” as the rationale and on
another “related to the gifted” was one of the main rationales. This data
93
indicated that the control group considered the needs of all of the students in
their class, but they also were responsive to the expectations of agencies
they are working with such as the school or district in which they work.
In an effort to answer the third research question regarding
relationships between teacher choices and the self-perceptions of their
students, teacher interviews were conducted and those teachers’ students
were administered a two-item survey. Teachers were chosen for the
interview based on participation in the Javits Grant Project and their proximity
to the researcher. Dr. Sandra Kaplan selected two school sites in the Los
Angeles Unified School District that had teacher participants in the grant
project that taught various grade levels with various levels of experience
teaching in general and specifically teaching gifted students. Research
Questions 3 and 4 sought to determine if a relationship existed between
students’ self-perceptions and the choices of their teachers for differentiated
or traditional lessons in the context of classroom composition. The teacher
interview consisted of choosing between two lessons in each subject area:
one containing curricular elements of differentiation as defined by the
California Standards for Gifted Students and the other example defined by
traditional standards-based curriculum (California State Board of Education,
2005). The determining factor for teacher choices was class compositions.
The third research question sought to compare each teacher’s responses to
those of their students on the All About Me student survey, in order to identify
94
a possible relationship between teacher choices and student self-perceptions
of themselves as students in the classroom. The All About Me student
survey administered to the students only contained items 9 and 10 (Appendix
B). Item 9 asked students to think of themselves during a lesson and to
identify a pictorial reference to depict how they thought the teacher saw them
as a student in the classroom. Item 10 asked the students to identify a
pictorial reference illustrating how they thought of themselves as a student in
the classroom. The choices on both items were similar. Students chose
between a picture of a student that is disinterested and not listening or
paying attention, a student that is a good student and wood worker with a
thinking cap on, a picture of an empty chair with the description that the
teacher does not notice them or that they are invisible, and a student that is
raising their hand eagerly with the description that they are interested, eager
and curious. Neihart (1999) stated that self-concept is the collection of ideas
one has about oneself. Items 9 and 10 ask students about their perceptions
in an effort to reveal their self-concept in a heterogeneous classroom.
95
Table 3. Interviewed Teachers’ Demographics
Teacher
Identification
Current
Grade
Level Class
Years Teaching
in General
Years Teaching
Gifted Students
One 3 5 4
Two 2 10 2
Three 5 26 15
Four 4 9 4
Five 3 20 5
Six 2 20 7
Table 3 shows the Teacher Demographic Data. All six teachers had
been teaching for more than 5 years with an average number of 15 years
teaching experience. Their experience teaching gifted students ranged from
2-15 years with an average of 6 years teaching gifted students. All teachers
reported no formal certificate in teaching gifted students but acknowledged
having been trained through the Javits Grant project and other informal
teacher inservices. These teachers represented elementary grade levels 2-
5, the grade levels mainly in which students are identified gifted in
elementary school.
96
Table 4. Interviewed Teachers’ Choices for Lessons
Teacher
Identification
Differentiated
Lesson Choices
Traditional
Lesson Choices
N % n %
One 6 37.5 10 62.5
Two 12 75 4 25
Three 16 100 0 0
Four 7 44 9 56
Five 7 44 9 56
Six 3 18.75 13 81.25
Table 4 illustrates the overall choices of the interviewed teachers for the
differentiated or traditional lesson. There were four subject areas and four
class compositions which yielded 16 different lesson choices during the
interview. Table 3 illustrates that Teacher Three was the only teacher that
chose the differentiated lesson all 16 times. Teacher Two had the second
highest frequency for choosing the differentiated lesson having chosen the
differentiated lesson 12 out of 16 times. Teachers Four and Five both
selected the differentiated lesson 7 out of 16 times for a rate of 44%.
Teacher One selected the differentiated lesson 6 out of 16 times or 37.5%
and Teacher Six selected the differentiated lesson only 3 out of 16 times or
18.75%.
Teacher One was a third grade teacher that had been in the teaching
profession for five years. She had taught gifted students for four of the five
years. Teacher One indicated that she would choose to teach a
differentiated lesson six out of sixteen times when given different class
97
compositions. This teacher chose the traditional lesson for the classes when
there were no identified gifted students and when there were just a few gifted
students. She also chose the traditional lesson in Science and Social
Studies for a class of cluster grouped students but chose the differentiated
lesson for Math and English Language Arts when teaching a cluster group of
gifted students. She chose the differentiated lesson for all subject areas
when teaching a class comprised solely of gifted students.
Table 5. Responses of Teacher One’s Students to How Students Perceive
Teacher Thinks of Them
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/Invisible
Interested
and Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 9 39 0 0 3 13
Recommended 0 0 2 9 0 0 2 9
Non-Gifted 0 0 7 30 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 18 78 0 0 5 22
Teacher One’s student responses, outlined in Table 5, show that both
the gifted and non-gifted students in her class chose either “good student” or
“interested and eager” to define their perceptions of how they thought the
teacher saw them as a student in the classroom. There were no differences
in responses between the responses of the gifted and non-gifted students.
98
Table 6. Responses of Teacher One’s Students on How Students Perceive
Themselves as Students
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/Invisible
Interested
and Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 7 30 1 4.5 4 17.3
Recommended 0 0 4 17.3 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 0 0 15 64.6 1 4.5 2 9
Totals 0 0 15 64.6 2 9 6 26.3
Table 7. Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in Teacher One’s
Class
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 0 0 9 75 7 58 0 0 1 8 3 25 4 33
Non-Gifted 0 0 0 0 9 82 8 73 0 0 1 9 2 18 2 18
Table 6 illustrates that 91% of Teacher One’s students selected “good
student and worker” or “interested and eager” regarding their thoughts of
themselves and only two students chose “invisible” when asked what they
thought of themselves. There was also no disparity between the self-
perceptions of the identified gifted students and the self-perceptions of the
non-gifted students.
Table 7 illustrates the different responses within the two groups and,
again, there was little variation between the responses of the gifted and non-
gifted students; however, the non-gifted students selected “good student” as
their response more than the gifted students whom more often chose
“interested and eager” than the non-gifted students.
99
Teacher Two, a second grade teacher, had very different responses to
the lesson choices than did her peers. Teacher Two reported, as
demonstrated in Table 3, that she had been teaching for ten years but had
only taught gifted students for two years. This teacher chose the
differentiated lesson twelve out of the sixteen times and chose the traditional
lesson all in one subject area: Social Studies. During the interview, Teacher
Two expressed that the differentiated lesson in Social Studies seemed like it
would be boring for the students because it involved writing an essay while
the traditional lesson involved making a chart. This may also be attributed to
the fact that she teaches second grade students and essay writing is not part
of their standards.
Table 8. Responses of Teacher Two’s Students to How Students Perceive
Teacher Thinks of Them
Student
Classification
Disinterested/Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0
Recommended 0 0 4 23.5 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 2 12 7 41 0 0 3 17.5
Totals 2 12 12 71 0 0 3 18
100
Table 9. Responses of Teacher Two’s Students on How Students Perceive
Themselves as Students
Student
Classification
Disinterested/Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0
Recommended 0 0 3 17.5 0 0 1 6
Non-Gifted 2 12 8 46.5 1 6 1 6
Totals 2 12 12 71 1 6 2 12
Tables 8 and 9 depict that Teacher Two only had one identified gifted
student in her class. That student chose “good student” for both her
perception of the teacher and her perception of herself. The majority of
Teacher Two’s students also chose “good student” or “interested and eager”
for their self-perception of the teacher and themselves. Only two students
chose “disinterested” on both items, and one student chose “invisible” to
describe how they saw themselves. Therefore, the majority of students
selected “good student and worker” or “interested and eager” to describe
their self-perceptions in a class where the teacher assigned value to
differentiated lessons for all students, even for classes with no identified
gifted students.
Table 10. Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in Teacher Two’s
Class
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 2 12.5 2 12.5 11 69 11 69 0 0 1 6 3 17.5 2 12.5
101
Table 10 shows the analysis of the data for differences between the
identified gifted students and the non-gifted students. In Teacher Two’s
class the single identified gifted student reported a positive self-perception
and the non-gifted students’ self-perceptions were mainly “good student and
worker” or “interested and eager” for the majority. A small population of the
non-gifted students chose “disinterested” or “invisible” for their self-
perceptions.
Teacher Three was the only interview subject that selected the
differentiated lesson in every subject with every class composition. She was
a fifth grade teacher that had been teaching for 26 years and had taught
gifted students 15 years. Teacher Three consistently reported that she felt
all students benefited from being taught the differentiated lessons.
Table 11. Responses of Teacher Three’s Students to How Students
Perceive Teacher Thinks of Them
Student
Classification
Disinterested/Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
N % n % n % n %
Gifted 3 11.5 8 30.5 1 4 4 15
Recommended 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 4 15.5 3 11.5 1 4 2 8
Totals 7 27 11 42 2 8 6 23
102
Table 12. Responses of Teacher Three’s Students on How Students
Perceive Themselves as Students
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
N % n % n % n %
Gifted 2 8 7 27 2 8 5 19
Recommended 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 1 4 1 4 4 5.5 4 15.5
Totals 3 11.5 8 31 6 23 9 34.5
Tables 11 and 12 indicate that Teacher Three’s students’ responses
had more variance than any other class. The gifted students in her class
chose “good student” (42%) and “interested and eager” (23%) when asked
how they thought the teacher perceived them as a student. Few of the non-
gifted students indicated they thought the teacher saw them as
“disinterested” or “invisible” and five of the students stated they perceived the
teacher saw them as a “good student” and “interested and eager” student.
When asked how they thought of themselves in the classroom, the same
percentage of the gifted students selected either “good student” or
“interested and eager.” The non-gifted students’ percentages were also
identical when asked how they thought the teacher saw them as a student in
the class with five selecting “good student” or “interested and eager” and five
choosing “disinterested” or “invisible.” Therefore, it could be stated that the
teacher who always chose to teach the differentiated lesson to the whole
class had a larger number of non-gifted students select “disinterested” or
“invisible” for their self-perceptions.
103
Table 13. Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in Teacher Three’s
Class
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 3 19 2 12.5 8 50 7 44 1 6 2 12.5 4 25 5 31
Non-Gifted 4 40 1 10 3 30 1 10 1 10 4 40 2 20 4 40
Table 13 describes the differences of responses of the gifted and non-
gifted students in Teacher Three’s classroom. The gifted students’
responses were consistent on both items. More non-gifted students selected
disinterested (40%) than invisible (10%) when asked how the teach thought
of them. When asked how they thought of themselves, more of the non-
gifted students chose invisible (40%) than disinterested (10%).
Teacher Four was a fourth grade teacher who had been teaching for
nine years. She had taught gifted students for four years as reported in the
interview as shown in Table 3. Teacher Four chose the differentiated lesson
nine out of sixteen times and selected the differentiated lesson in Math and
English Language Arts as soon as when there were only a few gifted
students. In Science, she chose to differentiate only with a cluster group of
gifted students or a class with all gifted students. In Social Studies, she
chose the traditional lesson for each class composition and indicated she
would move on to the differentiated lesson if the students showed readiness.
104
Table 14. Responses of Teacher Four’s Students to How Students Perceive
Teacher Thinks of Them
Student
Classification
Disinterested/Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/Invisible
Interested
and Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 5 17 15 51.5 0 0 3 10.5
Recommended 0 0 3 10.5 1 3.5 1 3.5
Non-Gifted 0 0 1 3.5 0 0 0 0
Totals 5 17 19 65.5 1 3.5 4 14
Table 15. Responses of Teacher Four’s Students on How Students Perceive
Themselves as Students
Student
Classification
Disinterested/Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 4 13.5 9 31 1 3.5 9 31
Recommended 1 3.5 3 10.5 0 0 1 3.5
Non-Gifted 0 0 0 0 1 3.5 0 0
Totals 5 17 12 41.5 2 7 10 34.5
The students in Teacher Four’s class, as indicated in Tables 14 and
15, selected “good student” or “interested and eager” at a percentage of
79.5% and 75%, with some variance caused by five of the gifted students
selecting “disinterested” in response to how the teacher saw them as
students and four of the gifted students labeling themselves as
“disinterested.”
105
Table 16. Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in Teacher Four’s
Class
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % N % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 5 22 4 17.5 15 65 9 39 0 0 1 4.5 3 13 9 39
Non-Gifted 0 0 1 16.5 4 67 3 50 1 16.5 1 16.5 1 16.5 1 16.5
In Table 16, when comparing the gifted students with the non-gifted
students, there is a difference between the two groups. A larger percentage
of gifted students chose the self-perception of “disinterested” in how the
teacher saw them than the non-gifted students. Therefore, the teacher that
chose the differentiated lesson less often than the traditional lesson, but had
a class comprised mainly of identified gifted students, had a larger number of
gifted students report negative self-perceptions in how they perceived the
teacher saw them as a student. The non-gifted students had a higher
percentage of students that selected “disinterested” or “invisible” as when
asked how they thought of themselves as a student in the classroom than
they did when reporting how they thought the teacher saw them as a student
in the classroom.
Teacher Five was a third grade teacher that had been teaching for
twenty years but had only taught gifted students for five years as shown in
Table 3. Teacher Five chose the differentiated lesson seven out of sixteen
times (44%) in a similar pattern to Teacher Four. Teacher Five chose the
106
traditional lesson consistently for class compositions of no gifted students
and a few gifted students. When presented with a cluster group of gifted
students, she selected the differentiated lesson in all subject areas, except
Social Studies. When presented with a class of all gifted students, she
consistently selected the differentiated lesson.
Table 17. Responses of Teacher Five’s Students to How Students Perceive
Teacher Thinks of Them
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/
Invisible
Interested
and Eager
N % n % n % n %
Gifted 2 10 6 30 2 10 5 25
Recommended 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 0 0 4 20 0 0 1 5
Totals 2 10 10 50 2 10 6 30
Table 18. Responses of Teacher Five’s Students on How Students Perceive
Themselves as Students
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 9 45 3 15 3 15
Recommended 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Gifted 0 0 2 10 1 5 2 10
Totals 0 0 11 55 4 20 5 25
Tables 17 and 18 show that eighty percent (80%) of Teacher Five’s
class chose “good student” or “interested and eager” of what the teacher
thought of them as students with the same percentage (80%) reporting “good
student” or “interested and eager” as a means to describe their perceptions
of themselves as students in the classroom.
107
Table 19. Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in Teacher Five’s
Class
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 2 13.3 0 0 6 40 9 60 2 13.3 3 20 5 33.3 3 20
Non-Gifted 0 0 0 0 4 80 2 40 0 0 1 20 1 20 2 40
When comparing the responses of Teacher Five’s gifted students
versus the non-gifted students in Table 19, only gifted students reported the
self-perceptions of “disinterested” or invisible.” Two gifted students (13.3%)
reported they thought the teacher saw them as “disinterested” and the same
amount (13.3%) reported that they thought the teacher saw them as
“invisible.” When selecting self-perceptions of how they saw themselves as
students in the classroom, three (20%) of the gifted students reported that
they thought of themselves as “invisible” in the classroom and one of five
(20%) of the non-gifted students selected the same self-perception of
thinking of themselves as “invisible.” Both groups of students, gifted and
non-gifted, selected the self-perceptions of “good student” and “interested” at
80% when thinking of themselves as students in the classroom.
Teacher Six was a second grade teacher who had been teaching for
twenty years and had taught gifted students for seven years as shown in
Table 3. Teacher Six selected the differentiated lesson only three out of
thirteen times when presented with the different subject areas and class
108
compositions. She chose the differentiated lesson only for a class of all
gifted students in Math, Science and English Language Arts. When
presented with the Social Studies lesson she said she would first teach the
traditional lesson, and then use the differentiated lesson as enrichment. She
responded similarly when presented with a cluster group of gifted students;
she said she would first teach the traditional lesson and then move on to the
differentiated lesson if her students showed they were capable of completing
the activity.
Table 20. Responses of Teacher Six’s Students to How Students Perceive
Teacher Thinks of Them
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Doesn’t Notice
Me/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 5 23 1 4.5 3 13.5
Recommended 0 0 3 13.5 1 4.5 8 36
Non-Gifted 0 0 1 4.5 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 9 41 2 9 11 49.5
Table 21. Responses of Teacher Six’s Students on How Students Perceive
Themselves as Students
Student
Classification
Disinterested/Not
Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 8 36 0 0 1 4.5
Recommended 0 0 6 27 0 0 6 28
Non-Gifted 0 0 1 4.5 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 15 67.5 0 0 7 32.5
In Teacher Six’s class, twenty of her twenty-two students (91%)
reported the self-perceptions of “good student” and “interested” and only two
students, or 9%, reported that they saw themselves as “invisible” to the
109
teacher as a student as shown in Table 20. When asked how they thought of
themselves, all students reported “good student” or “interested and eager” as
shown in Table 21.
Table 22. Responses of Gifted and Non-Gifted Students in Teacher Six’s
Class
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 0 0 0 0 5 55.5 8 89 1 11 0 0 3 33.5 1 11
Non-Gifted 0 0 0 0 4 31 7 54 1 7 0 0 8 62 6 46
In Teacher Six’s class, when comparing the responses of the gifted
versus non-gifted students there were no differences in the responses as
shown in Table 22. Of the students in her class, 89% of gifted students
reported the self-perceptions of “good student” or “interested and eager” of
how the teacher thought of them as students, while 83% of non-gifted
students reported the self-perceptions of “good student” or “interested and
eager.” Only one student in each group reported that they thought of
themselves as “invisible” as a student to the teacher. When reporting how
they thought of themselves, all (100%) of gifted and non-gifted students
chose the self-perceptions of “good student” or “interested and eager,”
showing again no difference between the responses of gifted and non-gifted
students.
110
Table 23. Responses of All Students Perceptions of Self as Learners
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying
Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Gifted 10 13 6 8 44 58 41 54 4 5 7 9 18 24 22 29
Non-Gifted 6 10 4 7 35 57 32 53 3 5 8 13 17 28 16 27
Table 23 depicts the self-perceptions of all students surveyed in the
interviewed teachers’ classrooms. Neihart (1999) stated that global
measures of adjustment suggest that gifted children are at least as well
adjusted as their non-gifted peers. Hoge and Renzulli (1991) also concluded
that in direct comparisons of gifted and non-gifted students, gifted students
as a group showed no major deficits in self-esteem. The data in Table 23
demonstrates that student responses among all the teachers were
consistent. These students consistently chose the references for self-
perceptions as “good” student or “interested and eager” student versus the
self-perceptions of “disinterested” or “invisible” students.
111
Table 24. Responses of All Students By Teacher and Student Classification
Student
Classification
Disinterested/
Not Paying Attention
Good Student
Good Worker
Not There/
Invisible
Interested and
Eager
Perceptions Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self Teacher Self
n % N % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Teacher One
Gifted
0 0 0 0 9 75 7 58 0 0 1 8 3 25 4 33
Teacher One
Non-Gifted
0 0 0 0 9 82 8 73 0 0 1 9 2 18 2 18
Teacher Two
Gifted
0 0 0 0 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Teacher Two
Non-Gifted
2 12.5 2 12.5 11 69 11 69 0 0 1 6 3 17.5 2 12.5
Teacher Three
Gifted
3 19 2 12.5 8 50 7 44 1 6 2 12.5 4 25 5 31
Teacher Three
Non-Gifted
4 40 1 10 3 30 1 10 1 10 4 40 2 20 4 40
Teacher Four
Gifted
5 22 4 17.5 15 65 9 39 0 0 1 4.5 3 13 9 39
Teacher Four
Non-Gifted
0 0 1 16.5 4 67 3 50 1 16.5 1 16.5 1 16.5 1 16.5
Teacher Five
Gifted
2 13.3 0 0 6 40 9 60 2 13.3 3 20 5 33.3 3 20
Teacher Five
Non-Gifted
0 0 0 0 4 80 2 40 0 0 1 20 1 20 2 40
Teacher Six
Gifted
0 0 0 0 5 55.5 8 89 1 11 0 0 3 33.5 1 11
Teacher Six
Non-Gifted
0 0 0 0 4 31 7 54 1 7 0 0 8 62 6 46
112
Table 24 illustrated the results of all students surveyed organized
by their teacher and by their classification as being identified gifted or not
identified gifted. This table illustrated that the students mainly selected the
self-perceptions of “good student” or “interested and eager” among all of the
teachers. It also depicted that some teachers had more students select the
other two self-perceptions of “disinterested” or “invisible”. This was
predominant in Teachers II, III and IV’s classes. The table also illustrated
that there was not a pattern in the responses of the gifted or non-gifted
students; their responses were similar in each of the six classrooms.
A chi-square analysis was conducted on the student data as a whole.
Students were divided into gifted and non-gifted students as well as each
group’s responses were divided between their self-perception of the
teacher’s view of them and their view of themselves as a student in the
classroom. The self-perceptions were classified into two categories: negative
self-perceptions comprised of the responses “disinterested” and “invisible”
and positive self-perceptions comprised of the responses “good student” and
“interested and eager.” The chi-square analysis was completed in order to
address the following null hypotheses:
• There is no difference between the self-perceptions of gifted and non-
gifted students of how they think the teacher sees them as a student
in the classroom.
113
• There is no difference between the self-perceptions of gifted and
non-gifted students of how they see themselves as students in the
classroom.
• There is no difference between how gifted students think the teacher
sees them as a student and how they see themselves as a student in
the classroom.
• There is no difference between how non-gifted students think the
teacher sees them as a student and how they see themselves as a
student in the classroom.
Each null hypothesis was accepted as the data showed no statistical
significance between any of the groups and their self-perceptions. This
demonstrated further that there is no statistical difference between the
responses of the gifted and non-gifted students. There also were no
statistical differences in each group’s responses; gifted and non-gifted,
regarding how they thought the teacher saw them as a student and how they
saw themselves as a student. Specifically, in the statistical analysis there
was no difference between the responses of gifted and non-gifted students in
how they perceived the teacher thought of them as a student in the
classroom, X
2
(1, N=137) = 0.649, p>0.05. There also was no statistical
difference between how the gifted and non-gifted students thought of
themselves as students in the classroom, X
2
(1, N=137) = 0.824, p>0.05.
114
When analyzing the responses of only the gifted students, there were no
differences in the responses of how the gifted students perceived the teacher
thought of them as a student in the classroom or how they perceived
themselves as a student in the classroom, X
2
(1, N=137) = 1.00, p>0.05.
There was also no difference in the responses of the non-gifted students in
terms of how they perceived the teacher thought of them as a student and
how they perceived themselves in the classroom, X
2
(1, N=122) = 0.632,
p>0.05.
The fourth research question sought to analyze teacher choices for
differentiated or traditional lessons in the context of classroom composition.
This was done using data from the interviews of six teacher participants in
the Javits Grant Project. Table 3 shows the demographics and Table 4 the
responses of the six teachers that were interviewed in order to address the
fourth research question of the effect of class composition on teachers’
instructional methods. These teachers were experimental participants in the
Javits Grant Project. Teachers One and Two taught at the same school and
Teachers Three, Four, Five and Six taught at the same school, both of which
are located in the San Fernando Valley in the Los Angeles Unified School
District. The teachers were all interviewed at their school sites on the same
day. Each interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. At the first
elementary school the teachers were interviewed in the library and at the
other school the teachers were interviewed in a conference room in their
115
school office. The teachers were released from their classes by a substitute
teacher at both schools in order to be interviewed individually. The teachers’
experiences teaching in general and teaching gifted students varied between
the participants as well as teaching a variety of grades. Four of the teachers
taught primary grades (2-3) and two taught upper grades (4-5), see Table 3.
The average number of years teaching among all the teachers was fifteen
years and the average number of years teaching gifted students was six.
Table 3 showed the overall frequency and percentage data regarding the
teachers’ choices for differentiated and traditional lessons.
116
Table 25. Teacher Responses to Lesson Choices by Frequency
Class
Compositions
Math
Differentiated
Lesson
Math
Traditional
Lesson
Science
Differentiated
Lesson
Science
Traditional
Lesson
SS
Differentiated
Lesson
SS
Traditional
Lesson
English LA
Differentiated
Lesson
English LA
Traditional
Lesson
No Gifted
Students
2
4
2
4
1
5
3
3
Few (2-3)
Gifted
Students
3
3
2
4
1
5
3
3
Cluster Group
Of Gifted
5
1
4
2
1
5
5
1
Gifted Only
Class
6
0
6
0
3
3
6
0
Totals
16
8
14
10
6
18
17
7
117
Each teacher was presented with two lesson choices, during the
interview. Both lessons were standards-based and represented the same
subject area and strand (Appendix E). One lesson, the differentiated lesson,
in each subject set contained elements of differentiated curriculum including
depth and complexity, universal concepts, and big ideas. The other lesson,
the traditional lesson, represented more traditional lesson elements related to
standards-based core curriculum and instruction. For each lesson the
teachers were presented successively with four different class compositions:
a class with no identified gifted students; a class with a small number of
gifted students; a class with an identified cluster of gifted students; and a
class comprised solely of gifted students. Teachers then reviewed the
lesson choices and chose a lesson based on the class composition. Table
25 shows that the majority of teachers felt that class composition definitively
affected their choices.
When teachers were presented with a class without identified gifted
students, they chose the traditional lesson over the differentiated lesson in all
subject areas except English Language Arts. In English Language Arts,
lesson choices were distributed evenly between the differentiated lesson and
the traditional lesson. When presented with a class containing only a few
identified gifted students, the results were similar with teachers choosing the
traditional lesson more often, except that the differentiated lesson in both
Math and English Language Arts was chosen evenly among the teachers.
118
The teachers’ responses changed significantly when they were
presented with a class containing a cluster group of gifted students. Dexter
(1998) summarized the findings of McInerney as stating that cluster grouping
is the deliberate placement of a group of high achieving or gifted students in
an otherwise heterogeneous classroom. She also stated that the teacher in
this classroom should have the background knowledge and training in gifted
education and would then be willing to provide appropriate challenges for
these students. The teachers selected the differentiated lesson more
frequently except in the subject area of Social Studies where the traditional
lesson was chosen more frequently over the differentiated lesson five to one.
This was the same ratio that the traditional lesson in Social Studies was
chosen for the class with no gifted students or just a few gifted students as
well. In the other three subject areas the differentiated lesson was chosen
5:1, or more than twice as often, in Math, 4:2, or twice as often, in Science
and 5:1 in English Language Arts.
When presented with a class comprised solely of gifted students, the
teachers solely chose the differentiated lesson in Math, Science, and English
Language Arts. In Social Studies, there was a shift in the teachers’ choices
from the previous class compositions. When presented with a class of all
gifted students, they chose the differentiated lesson 3:3 as depicted in Table
25. VanTassel-Baska (2006) stated that differentiation in regular classrooms
is lacking compared to gifted classrooms, suggesting that gifted practices
119
have not impacted teaching to the extent necessary to benefit gifted
students. Students in a class comprised solely of gifted students in this study
would have received the differentiated curriculum at a greater percentage
than students in a class of few or no identified gifted students. They would
have also received a differentiated curriculum more often than gifted students
in a cluster grouped class.
When looking at the teachers’ choices and influential factors, there did
not seem to be a difference among the teachers as shown in Table 3. All
teachers reported having no formal certificate for training gifted students.
They reported having been trained at inservices in addition to training
received through the Javits Grant Project. No pattern presented itself when
considering years of teaching, grade level, or number of years teaching gifted
students except that the teacher with the most experience in both areas
consistently chose the differentiated lesson. Even as experience and years
with gifted students varied among the other teachers, no pattern or trend
emerged. During the interview, Teachers Four and Six expressed that when
presented with a few gifted students or a cluster group in a class, the would
always start all students with the traditional lesson and then move on to the
activity described in the differentiated lesson. They stated they would base
their decision to differentiate on student attainment of basic concepts. They
also stated that they would group students and teach the differentiated
lessons separately as an alternative. When asked to choose only one
120
lesson, the teachers then chose the traditional lesson based on the needs of
the students in the class that needed basic concepts or scaffolding.
During the interview, teachers were asked for their rationale of why
they chose the particular lesson for the particular class composition after
each response. Teacher responses to the prompt of why they chose a
particular lesson for a particular class composition were classified and coded
based on the list of rationales used in the Teacher Questionnaire. These
codes were: expediency, previous experience dictates this works best,
expectations of the district, school, etc., just because…I don’t have a reason
for the choice, challenge to students, relationship to expectations or needs of
the gifted, and affects all learners in the classroom. Patton stated,
“Classifying and coding qualitative data produce a framework for organizing
and describing what has been collected during fieldwork” (p. 465). Table 26
represents those responses coded to the rationales presented in the Teacher
Questionnaire.
121
Table 26. Interview Responses of Rationale of Interviewed Teachers by Frequency
Interview Item
Subject – Class Composition
Expediency Previous
Experience
District,
School
Expectations
Just
Because
Challenge
to
Students
Related to
Gifted
Affects All
Learners
Math – No Gifted 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
Science – No Gifted 0 4 0 0 0 0 2
SS – No Gifted 0 5 0 0 0 0 1
English LA – No Gifted 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
Math – Few Gifted 0 2 0 0 1 1 2
Science – Few Gifted 0 2 1 0 1 0 2
SS-Few Gifted 0 5 0 0 0 0 1
English LA – Few Gifted 0 2 0 0 1 0 3
Math – Cluster Group 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Science – Cluster Group 0 3 0 0 0 1 2
SS – Cluster Group 0 1 0 0 2 0 3
English LA – Cluster Group 0 2 0 0 1 2 1
Math – All Gifted 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
Science – All Gifted 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
SS – All Gifted 0 2 0 0 0 2 2
English LA – All Gifted 0 0 0 0 1 2 3
Total 0 35 1 0 13 13 34
122
Table 26 illustrates that the “affects all learners” rationale was one of s
given by the teachers throughout the interview with all subject areas and
class compositions 34 times. This is similar to the data obtained when all
teacher participants in the Javits Grant chose a rationale for their choice of
teaching methods. This rationale was phrased in different ways by the
interview subjects such as:
• This lesson would be good for all the kids
• All the kids could do this
• The majority would be able to do this
• All the students should be doing higher level thinking
The most common rationale given was “previous experience” which
was given 35 times in the interview. This was represented by the teachers in
phrases such as:
• I know some kids could not to do this other lesson
• This would be a good place to start
• I could scaffold with this lesson and then build on it
• This would be too abstract for the whole class
This rationale was mainly chosen when teachers were presented with
the classes with no or few gifted students as depicted in Table 26. The other
two rationales given by the teachers frequently were “challenge to students”
and “gifted students should do this” with a frequency of thirteen for each.
Table 26 shows that these rationales were stated more often when teachers
123
were presented with the gifted cluster or the class of all gifted students.
Teachers phrased their rationale for “challenge” by actually referring to the
word challenge in their response. When teachers stated “this would
challenge all my students,” they also said that they would “start by giving all
the students the differentiated lesson” and then “backfill” if anyone needed it.
When teacher’s responses were based on the needs of gifted
students, they used phrases such as:
• This lesson has depth and complexity for gifted students
• Gifted students should be supporting with evidence
• This lesson has higher level thinking which is good for the gifted
students
When the data from the Teacher Questionnaire was examined and
compared to the information obtained in the interviews, there are both noted
similarities and differences. The experimental teachers reported that they
assigned priority or value to teaching the whole heterogeneous class more
than teaching a small homogeneous group or a small heterogeneous group
as shown in Figures 3 and 4. This was similar to interview responses where
teachers reported the needs of all the students in the classes as a main
factor in their selection of curriculum strategies. The interviewed teachers
verbalized that they could teach both the differentiated and traditional lesson
in their classrooms if they divided the students into smaller groups of gifted,
or high achieving, students and students working at or below grade level.
124
When asked on the Teacher Questionnaire whether they assigned
priority or value to “teaching basic skills,” or “critical thinking skills,” the
experimental group of trained teachers chose “critical thinking skills” by a
margin of 87.5% as shown in Figure 5. When presented with different class
compositions, there was a clear difference in what the interviewed teachers
would teach based on which group of students they were teaching as shown
in Table 25. These teachers only chose the differentiated lesson that
contained higher level thinking for classes with all gifted students and mostly
with a cluster group of gifted students in Science, Math and English
Language Arts. When they were presented with classes containing few or no
gifted students, the teachers chose the lesson that included more basic skills.
These teachers also chose universal concepts and big ideas, elements of
differentiation, and higher level thinking with reference to the same class
compositions.
On the Teacher Questionnaire Item 5 (Figure 6), the experimental
teachers selected “universal concepts and big ideas” as what they assigned
the most value or priority to 73.7% of the time but in the interviews the
teachers only chose the lessons containing universal concepts and big ideas
and other elements of differentiation 55% of the time. The interviewee’s
responses were consistent with the response to Item 6 on the Teacher
Questionnaire (Figure 7) where 47.5% of the trained teachers said they
assigned value to teaching areas that interest the gifted while 52.5% said
125
they assigned priority to teaching lessons that are standards based. A
difference existed between the Teacher Questionnaire data and the interview
data related to Item 9. This item asked teachers which type of learners they
would most value teaching. The experimental group of teachers reported on
the Teacher Questionnaire that 84.6% they would choose to teach the
advanced and gifted students (Figure 10). However, when the interview
participants were asked to choose which lesson they would teach, they
chose the lesson aimed more at students performing at or below grade level
with basic concepts and typical products versus the lessons aimed at
reaching advanced or gifted students with higher level thinking and novel
products as outlined in the Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted
Students (California State Board of Education, 2005).
Table 27. Percent Teachers Chose the Differentiated Lesson
Class
Composition
Math Science Social
Studies
English
Lang. Arts
No Gifted 33% 33% 17% 50%
Few Gifted 50% 33% 17% 50%
Cluster Group 83% 67% 17% 83%
Gifted Class 100% 100% 50% 100%
Item 12 on the Teacher Questionnaire asked the teachers to choose
between valuing basic prompts or prompts of depth and complexity. The
experimental group chose the prompts of depth and complexity 92.3% as
shown in Figure 13. Yet when asked to choose between the differentiated
126
lessons, each containing prompts of depth and complexity, or the
traditional lesson containing basic prompts, the interviewed teachers chose
the traditional lesson 45% of the time. Most of the teachers chose the
differentiated lesson only with an established group of gifted students or an
entire class of gifted students as illustrated in Table 27.
Summary of Findings
Several patterns emerged when performing the secondary analysis of
the Javits Grant data which was obtained from the Teacher Questionnaires,
analyzing the student All About Me surveys and analyzing the teacher
responses during the interviews. All three data sets were related to each
other in terms of content and then results in order to define key findings
regarding the data. Major findings include the impact that professional
development and monitoring of curriculum and instruction had on teacher
choices for differentiated curriculum and instruction. It was found that
teachers that received this systematic training more consistently selected
differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies as the strategies that
they would value or prioritize. They also selected the rationale of “affects all
learners” as the main reason or rationale for their choices of differentiated
curriculum and instructional strategies.
Teacher interview data suggested that classroom composition played
a large role in the choices of differentiated versus traditional lessons in
hypothetical classroom arrangements. Teachers consistently selected the
127
differentiated lesson for classes with all gifted students or a cluster group
of gifted students. In a class with no gifted students or only a few gifted
students, teachers’ selection of the differentiated lesson was much less
frequent. These results showed the impact of classroom composition on
teacher choices. On the items regarding teacher choices and students self
perceptions no significant data was yielded with no distinct pattern or trend in
the responses of students and their teachers or the responses of gifted
versus non-gifted students.
128
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
This study examined the curriculum and instructional choices of
teachers of gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms by analyzing their
responses to both the Teacher Questionnaire and an Interview Protocol. The
teachers’ choices for differentiated or traditional lessons during the interview
were then related to the self-perceptions of their students on the All About
Me survey (Appendix B) in order to determine if a relationship existed
between teachers’ choices for differentiated or traditional lessons and self-
perceptions of gifted and non-gifted students. Teacher choices for
differentiated or traditional lessons also were related to four class
compositions: a class with no identified gifted students, a class with a few
gifted students, a class with a cluster group of gifted students and a class
with all gifted students.
Delcourt, Loyd, Cornell, and Goldberg (1994) concluded that
significant differences in achievement and affect occurred in students in
different types of programs for the gifted with no single program fully
addressing all the needs of gifted students. Kulik and Kulik (1987) found that
students in programs designed specifically for gifted students such as within-
class groupings, between-class groupings, both of which are homogeneous
groupings of gifted students, had positive effects on gifted students’
129
achievement. Programs that were designed for all students, not just for
the benefit of talented students, had significantly lower effects on student
achievement (p. 28). This study examined how class groupings or
compositions affect a teacher’s choice for lessons containing strategies for
differentiation and traditional lessons; it also examined how participation in
the Javits Grant Project affected teacher choices for differentiated curriculum
and instruction strategies.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the curricular and
instructional choices teachers make for gifted students and why teachers
perceived these choices to be appropriate for their classroom. This study
determined how teacher’s choices were affected by such elements as
expediency, previous experiences, district and school expectations, providing
challenge to students, expectations or needs of their gifted students, affect
of differentiating curriculum and instruction on all learners in the classroom
and classroom composition. Teacher choices were then related to students’
choices to see the relationship between teacher choices and gifted and non-
gifted students’ self-perceptions.
The California Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented
Students require that a school district provide a continuum of services and
program options responsive to the needs, abilities, and interests of gifted
130
students based on philosophical, theoretical and empirical support
(California State Board of Education, 2005). These programs can vary
between schools and districts. The California State Board of Education
(2005) provides guidelines to teach gifted students. These guidelines name
grouping patterns including cluster grouping, part-time grouping, special day
classes, and special schools as appropriate administrative grouping
structures for gifted education (California State Board of Education, 2005).
This study revealed that these guidelines affected the curriculum and
instructional strategies and lessons that teachers provide to teach gifted
students.
While the original purpose of the study was to relate teacher choices
to student self-perceptions, important implications were discovered from the
data from the Teacher Questionnaire and the teacher interviews. Teachers
in the experimental group, including the teachers that were interviewed, were
participants in a Javits Grant Project conducted by Dr. Sandra Kaplan. The
training received in Javits Grant Project appeared to influence teacher
choices on the Teacher Questionnaire, but was less evident in the teacher
interviews when the teachers considered the context of classroom
composition when making choices for curriculum and instruction.
131
Research Questions
There were four research questions addressed in this study:
1. Which curriculum and instructional strategies do teachers choose for
gifted students?
2. What rationales do teachers attribute to their curriculum and
instructional strategies for gifted students?
3. What is the relationship between gifted and non-gifted students’ self-
perceptions in a heterogeneous classroom and the teachers’ choices
of curriculum and instructional strategies?
4. How is the teacher’s selection of appropriate curriculum for the gifted
affected by the context of class composition?
Sample and Methodology
This study was conducted in two parts using mixed methods. The first
part of the study consisted of a secondary analysis of data obtained from
Javits Grant Project S206A040072 where teachers were trained on
differentiating curriculum and instruction using models of teaching. These
teachers completed a Teacher Questionnaire during the grant project in
which they were asked questions regarding their teaching practices. Section
III of the Teacher Questionnaire asked the teachers to choose which
teaching methods they assigned value or gave priority to and then to select a
132
rationale or reason to explain their choices. This data was analyzed as a
comparison between the experimental teachers, and the control group of
teachers that completed the same Teacher Questionnaire. The second part
of the study consisted of interviewing six of the teachers that participated and
were trained as part of the Javits Grant Project. These teachers were
selected based on proximity to the researcher and recommendations from
Dr. Sandra Kaplan. In addition to the interview, the teachers administered a
survey to the students in their class. The teacher interview consisted of
teachers choosing between two lessons in each of the four main subject
areas; Math, Science, Social Studies and English Language Arts. One
lesson in each subject set contained curricular elements of differentiation
including depth and complexity, universal concepts and big ideas. The other
lesson in the subject set contained the traditional core curriculum model.
The teachers chose between the two lessons when presented with different
class compositions. There were four class compositions presented during
the interview; a class with no identified gifted students, a class with a few
identified gifted students, a class with a cluster group of identified gifted
students and a class of all identified gifted students. For each class
composition the teachers selected which subject area lesson they would
present to their students. The students in each interviewed teacher’s class
completed items 9 and 10 on the All About Me survey (Appendix B) which
asked them two questions regarding their self-perceptions in their
133
heterogeneous classroom. Item 9 on the All About Me survey asked the
students to choose between four pictures and descriptions of students in
order to select how they perceived the teacher thought of them as a student
in the classroom. Item 10 on the All About Me survey asked students to
choose between the same four pictures and descriptions to select how they
perceived themselves as a student in the classroom. The four pictures and
descriptions were: a student that is disinterested or not paying attention, a
student that is a good student and a good worker, a student that is invisible
and doesn’t feel like they are there and a student that is interested, eager,
and curious. The Teacher Questionnaire data, interview data and student
survey data were analyzed individually and then compared to form
conclusions regarding teacher choices and student self-perceptions to
answer the four research questions.
Key Findings
The first research question inquired as to which curriculum and
instructional strategies teachers most assigned value to teach gifted
students. When comparing the group of Javits Grant trained experimental
group teachers to the control group of teachers that received no treatment or
intervention, the research indicated that the experimental group responded
differently than the control group. When asked to make choices between
differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies, the experimental
134
teachers gave priority to differentiated curriculum and instructional
strategies more frequently than the control group of teachers. Differentiated
curriculum and instructional strategies were more often selected by the
experimental versus the control group of teachers. The experimental group,
compared to the control group, selected designing their own lessons (82.5%
vs. 54.5%), teaching critical thinking skills (87.5% vs. 54.5%), teaching using
universal concepts and big ideas (73.7% vs. 45.5%), and teaching
generalizations, principles and theories across the disciplines (71.8% vs.
36.4%). The experimental group also selected teaching different topics
across the disciplines (92.3% vs. 63.6%), teaching subjects connected to a
theme or universal concept (74.4% vs. 36.4%), teaching creative thinking
skills (60.5% vs. 45.5%), and teaching prompts of depth and complexity
(92.3% vs. 54.5%) in higher percentages than did the control group. This
data suggested that it is valuable for teachers working with gifted students to
receive specialized training in differentiated curriculum and instructional
methods over a sustained period of time in a systematic format that gives
them the tools to implement differentiated instruction for gifted and advanced
students in their classrooms. Whitmore (1980) stated that no educational
provision alone can meet the needs of gifted students, and that having
teachers that have been prepared to teach gifted students and have access
to the resources necessary to teach gifted students is the critical need in
gifted education (p. 68). Spillane (2002) stated that telling teachers that all
135
students can and should do intellectually demanding work is not likely to
be adequate in causing large scale instructional change. The California
Department of Education and the California Association for the Gifted (1994)
proposed that educators need to develop a new version of excellence that
depends on a fresh understanding of how the core curriculum can be
differentiated to provide advanced learning opportunities. The training
provided through the Javits Grant altered the views of the participating
teachers in a positive way by showing them the value in using these
techniques in their classrooms. This then transferred to pedagogical
differences in the teachers. Teachers of gifted students would benefit from
systematic training for differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies,
which include the strategies outlined in the California GATE standards
(California State Board of Education, 2005), that was provided through the
Javits Grant Project. Renzulli and Reis (1998) found that additional staff
development is necessary in order to help teachers make appropriate
curricular and instructional decisions for advanced content appropriate for
high achieving students, especially as it relates to challenging, differentiated
replacement strategies. Spillane (2002) found that teachers of underserved
students also needed this type of professional development. He stated that
with new knowledge about subject matter and instruction, teachers can
reconstruct their practice in order to see that their disadvantaged students,
students that came to school lacking essential cognitive and social skills, can
136
master challenging content while learning basic skills. In summary,
teachers trained in using differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies
assigned value or gave priority to differentiated curriculum and instructional
strategies including grouping for gifted students, using prompts of depth and
complexity, teaching using universal concepts and big ideas, and fostering
creative and critical thinking. This is to the benefit of all students including
those in underserved populations in heterogeneous classrooms.
The second research question examined the rationales of the
experimental group of trained teachers indicated for their choices of
curriculum and instructional strategies compared to the control group of
teachers that did not receive the training. For each item on Section III of the
Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix A) the teachers selected a single reason
or rationale the experimental group of teachers mainly chose the rationale of
“affects all learners” for their curriculum and instructional methods choices
with some variation. On the item of basic skills versus critical thinking skills
and basic facts and concepts or universal concepts and big ideas, the
experimental group selected “challenge to students” almost as often as they
selected “affects all learners.” On only one item, the question regarding
teaching areas that interest the gifted or choosing standards based lessons
and curriculum, the experimental teachers selected “district, school
expectations” more frequently than the control group. The control group,
however, chose “district, school expectations” as the predominant rationale
137
as often as they chose “affects all learners” as their rationale. There was
some variance in the control group responses with teachers choosing
“related to gifted” and “previous experience” most frequently on two separate
items. This data suggested that the trained experimental group of teachers
saw differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies as affecting and
benefiting all learners in the classroom, where the control group of teachers
made decisions based on all learners, but also indicated that district and
school expectations played a large role in their decision-making in the
classroom. Rogers (2002) stated that at the elementary level you may find
teachers who try to differentiate their teaching for the different levels in their
class, but they still aim to teach the grade level curriculum to all students.
She found that this meant if a child has already mastered the grade level
curriculum that they will be offered little more in terms of instruction (p. 219).
Teachers that participated in the Javits Grant Project chose “affects all
learners” as their predominant rationale when they selected curriculum and
instructional strategies for gifted students. By receiving systematic training in
the benefits of differentiated instruction for all learners, teachers were more
likely to see the value in implementing these strategies to the benefit of all
learners.
The third research question sought to find a relationship between the
student self-perceptions and their teachers’ choices for differentiated or
traditional lessons in the context of class composition. No distinct
138
relationship presented itself in this inquiry. Teacher choices in class
composition and differentiated lessons did not seem to affect student self-
perceptions. Regardless of the teachers’ choices for differentiated or
traditional lessons, the majority of students chose the self-perceptions of
“good student” and “interested and eager.” Only a few students in each class
chose the negative self-perceptions of “disinterested” and “invisible.” In their
research on the self-concept of gifted students, Hoge and Renzulli (1991)
found that direct comparisons of gifted and non-gifted students revealed no
major differences in self-esteem between the two groups (p. 28). When Kulik
(1993) analyzed studies for noncognitive outcomes of grouping programs, he
found that grouping programs have only small effects on students’ self-
esteem. The data on student self-perceptions would be most valuable to the
teachers of the students themselves. The teachers could work on an
individual basis with their students in order to address their individual social
emotional needs and possibly affect their self-perceptions of how the teacher
sees them as a student in the classroom and how they see themselves as a
student in the classroom. Neihart (1999) completed an analysis of empirical
studies regarding gifted students perceptions and found that educational
placement does influence the adjustment of a child. Specifically she found
that students placed in segregated or full time classes actually had lower
self-concepts which could be commensurate with this data regarding children
139
in heterogeneous classrooms that have self-concepts of “good student”
and “interested and eager.”
The fourth research question provided the most profound information
in this study in terms of future implications for practice and research. The six
teachers that were interviewed gave clear indications of their selections of
lesson choices based on the number of gifted students in a classroom using
current grouping practices for gifted students. Table 27 shows the percent of
interviewed teachers that chose the differentiated lesson in each subject and
for each class composition. When interviewed, the teachers seemed to
thoroughly consider their choices before responding when provided with
stimulus cards describing lesson choices and class compositions. The six
teachers interviewed were among the participants in the Javits Grant Project.
These teachers responses indicated that even with systematic training on the
importance of using differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies and
models of teaching for the benefit of all students, that they chose the
traditional lesson more often and sometimes exclusively for classes with no
gifted students or only a few gifted students. In Math, Science and English
Language Arts they were more likely to choose the differentiated lesson than
they were in Social Studies, some citing the background knowledge needed
by students in order to successfully complete the Social Studies lesson.
When considering a class with an established cluster group of gifted students
the teachers chose the differentiated lesson 63% of the time in all subject
140
areas combined but they selected the differentiated lesson in Math and
Language Arts 83% of the time, possibly showing more confidence in
differentiating in the core subjects than in Science and Social Studies. This
is supported by the statements of Gentry (1999) that Cluster Grouping may
provide students with opportunities for growth as well as recognition by their
teachers. She also stated that cluster grouping may improve how teachers
view their students with respect to ability and achievement. In looking at a
class comprised only of gifted students, sometimes referred to as a special
day class for gifted students, the teachers selected the differentiated lesson
87.5% of the time and the traditional lesson 12.5% of the time. In the
subjects of Math, Science and English Language Arts the teachers chose the
differentiated lesson 100% of the time. The experimental teachers’ choices
clearly indicated that class composition directly affected their instructional
choices. Hertzog (2003) completed a study of student reflections and they
concurred that teacher choices were affected by the students they are
serving, the students in her study observed that if the same teacher taught
classes for gifted students and classes for non-gifted students that there
were differences in the quality of the instruction. Teachers in this study were
more likely to choose and teach a differentiated lesson when they were
presented with an established cluster group of gifted students or a class
comprised solely of gifted students.
141
Implications
The results of the study indicated that systematic training for teachers
on strategies for differentiating curriculum and instruction for gifted students
was essential in order to affect the values and priorities of teachers who have
gifted students in their class. Teachers should be provided with sample
lessons and then should be asked to reflect on the lessons, their
effectiveness, and their impact on student understanding and critical thinking
skills, as has happened in the Javits Grant project. Teachers should be
instructed on the various grouping practices for gifted students and how to
instruct gifted students in heterogeneous classrooms with various
compositions of gifted students. Gayle Gregory (2003) referred to this as
job-embedded learning where teachers learn and perfect teaching strategies
within the schoolhouse working hours. Gregory describes some of the
purposes of job-embedded learning as developing a deeper understanding of
content, supporting implementation of curricular and instructional initiatives
and continuing the professional dialogue about teaching and learning (p. 11).
VanTassel-Baska (2006) stated that more cohesion in curriculum planning
that involves regular and gifted staff would increase awareness of the needs
of gifted learners for differentiated instruction. She also stated that this
142
cohesion would contribute to ownership of the responsibility to serve
these students and address state standards at the same time.
The second most important implication is that there are class
compositions that positively affect gifted students by increasing their
opportunities to receive differentiated instruction. Teacher interviews clearly
showed that students must at a minimum be in a cluster grouped class for
gifted students to receive the appropriate differentiated lessons and that
being in a special day class for all gifted students would ensure that a
teacher will employ curriculum and instructional strategies for gifted students
including the elements of differentiation. In her study of cluster grouping,
Gentry (1999) found that 79% of the 11 teachers in her study indicated that
cluster grouping made it easier for them to meet the needs of the individual
students in their class. She also found that teachers believed it was
beneficial for high achieving students to be in a class together because they
challenged and motivated each other (p. 40). The teachers in this study
revealed that class composition played a large role in their decision-making
including making statements such as, “The other kids would not understand
this lesson,” or “The rest of the class would need scaffolding to be able to do
this lesson.” The California Department of Education and the California
Association of the Gifted do not agree that the needs of below grade level
students should be foremost in teachers’ minds. They stated that the
classroom teacher is charged not only with ensuring that students who
143
request more challenge in the classroom are accommodated but that the
teacher also must provide opportunities for students for whom the need for
challenge is not as obvious. Decisions to differentiate instruction are for all
students. Spillane (2002) discovered that teachers that began to see all of
their students in a different light, generated for themselves convincing
evidence that their “disadvantaged” students, students that lacked certain
verbal skills and experiences that were prized in school, were interested in,
and motivated to, learn. The responses of the teachers that were
interviewed indicated that schools and districts must at least use a model of
cluster grouping in order to meet the curricular and instructional needs of
gifted students as outlined in the California GATE standards (California State
Board of Education, 2005) until all teachers can be educated to see that all
students benefit from the opportunities presented by a differentiated
curriculum. It may be most beneficial for gifted students to be in a class of all
gifted students to ensure that they receive a proper differentiated curriculum
with appropriate differentiated curriculum and instructional strategies.
Limitations
There were additional limitations to those described in Chapter 1 of
this study that emerged during the data collection and analysis process. The
first was the inability to perform tests of significance on the Javits Grant data
because of the inability to obtain frequency data versus percentage data and
144
because missing cases in the original data were not organized to find
statistical differences. Therefore, the data was only presented in terms of
trends in teacher choices and rationales of the experimental group versus the
control group. The second limitation was the lesson descriptions used during
the interviews represented various elementary grade level standards.
Therefore the teachers’ responses may have been altered because they felt
their own class could or could not do the lesson because of age instead of
thinking of the grade level content standard of the lesson itself.
Areas for Future Research
Future research implications include research on student perceptions
and teacher instructional choices where a pretest posttest format could be
followed. In other words, students would be given a measure of self-
perceptions at the beginning of a school year. They would then be placed
with a teacher that consistently uses differentiated curriculum and
instructional strategies in a heterogeneous classroom. The teacher would
then give students the same measure of self-perceptions at the end of the
school year to see if there is a significant statistical difference in self-
perceptions of the students as a whole and then separated into gifted and
non-gifted students. Students should be observed in these classes as well in
order to validate their responses of perceptions of themselves and their
teachers in a heterogeneous classroom. Additional research should also be
145
completed in measuring the frequency with which trained teachers teach
differentiated lessons based on the compositions of their classrooms in order
to see if that data would coincide with the interview data in this study or if in
practice their teacher behavior is different. Research on other dimensions on
the self-perceptions of gifted students should take place where gifted
students are asked directly about variables that could be affecting how they
think the teacher sees them in the classroom and how they see themselves
in the classroom.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study has provided more information in three areas
of research regarding gifted students and their instructional programs. The
first conclusion from the study was that teacher choices for curricular and
instructional methods for differentiation were positively affected by systematic
teacher training and monitoring of themselves and their students. Further
trainings of the nature of the Javits Grant Project should be continued for all
teachers teaching gifted students in any classroom compositions. The
trained teachers assigned value and gave priority to differentiated curriculum
and instructional strategies because of the affect they have on all of the
learners in a classroom, as well as, provide challenge for all students
including the gifted.
146
The second conclusion is that student self-perceptions were not
directly affected by the students’ teacher’s instructional choices. Students in
heterogeneous classrooms where differentiated curriculum and instruction
was occurring had overall self-perceptions of being good students or
interested and eager students when asked how they perceived the teacher
saw them as a student and how they saw themselves as a student. Also,
there was no statistical difference in the responses of the gifted versus non-
gifted students.
The third and final conclusion is that grouping strategies for gifted
students do have an affect on how teachers make decisions about the types
of lessons they teach and the different elements in those lessons. Gifted
students should be grouped with other gifted students for many reasons as
shown by the research cited in this study and recommended by the State
Board of Education (2005). The findings from this research study were that
class composition has a direct impact on whether or not a teacher selected a
lesson containing elements of differentiation or whether they chose a more
traditional lesson. Our gifted students should be in cluster grouped classes
or programs where they are taught as a group of gifted students to ensure
that they are receiving the kind of curriculum and instruction that is
responsive to their collective and individual needs, interests, and abilities.
147
REFERENCES
Archambault, Jr., F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W.,
Emmons, C. L., & Zhang, W. (1993, June). Regular classroom
practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of
classroom teachers (Research Monograph 93102). Storrs, CT:
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Bates, J., & Munday, S. (2005). Able, gifted and talented. Great Britain:
Continuum.
Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007, May 29). Research synthesis: the
practice of cognitive interviewing. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from Public
Opinion Quarterly Web Site:
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract
Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological
network: a review of construct validation research. Review of
Educational Research, 54, 427-456.
California Association for the Gifted (Ed.). (1996). Meeting the challenge: A
guidebook for teaching gifted students.
California Association for the Gifted. (n.d.). Meeting the standards: a guide to
developing services for gifted students.
California Department of Education (2005). Gifted and Talented Education
Resource Guide. California: California Department of Education.
California Department of Education (2005). Gifted and Talented Education
Program Guide.
California Department of Education and California Association for the Gifted.
(1994). Differentiating the core curriculum and instruction to provide
advanced learning opportunities [Brochure]. Sacramento, CA: Author.
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Education Code. In California
Codes (Section 51013). Retrieved June 22, 2007, from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
148
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Education Code. In California
Codes (Section 52200-52212). Retrieved June 22, 2007, from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov
California State Board of Education. (October 2001, Revised July 2005).
Recommended Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented
Students: www.cde.ca.gov.
California State Board of Education. (Revised July 2005). Recommended
Standards for Programs for Gifted and Talented Students:
www.cde.ca.gov.
Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Delcourt, M. A. B, Loyd, B. H., Cornell, D. G., & Goldberg, M. D. (1994).
Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student
learning outcomes (Research Monograph 94108). Storrs, CT: The
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of
Connecticut.
Dexter, D. K. (1998). Cluster grouping: a strategy for effective teaching.
Gifted Child Today, 21(3), 13-20.
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-Theories. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3),
178-186.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: W.W.
Norton and Company.
Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Newton, MA: Allyn
and Bacon, Inc.
Gentry, M. L. (January 1999). Promoting student achievement and
exemplary classroom practices through cluster grouping: a research-
based alternative to heterogeneous elementary classrooms
(RM99138). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted
and Talented.
149
Gentry, M., Rizza, M. G., & Owen, S. V. (2002). Examining perceptions
of challenge and choice in classrooms: the relationship between
teachers and their students and comparisons between gifted students
and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 145-155.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Graffam, B. (2006). A case study of teachers of gifted learners: moving from
prescribed practice to described practitioners. Gifted Child Quarterly,
50, 119-131.
Green, M., & Piel, J. A. (2002). Theories of human development: a
comparative approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gregory, G. H. (2003). Differentiated instructional strategies in practice:
training, implementation, and supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Gregory, G. H., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiate Instructional Strategies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students'
perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 131-143.
Hoge, R. D., & Renzulli, J. S. (December 1991). Self-concept and the gifted
child (Number 9104). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on
the Gifted and Talented.
Howell, D. C. (2004). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Kaplan, S. (1999). Events that have impacted gifted education. Gifted Child
Today, 22(6), 44-45.
Kaplan, S. (2002). Concentric Circles of Knowledge. Tempo, XXII (2), 19-21.
Kulik, J. A. (February 1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping:
historical and contemporary perspectives (NRC-G/T-9204). Storrs,
CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Kulik, J. A. (1993). An analysis of the research on ability grouping. NRC/GT
Newsletter, 8-9.
150
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping
programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. (1987). Effects of ability grouping on student
achievement. Equity and Excellence, 23(1-2), 22-30.
Landrum, M. S., Callahan, C. M., & Shaklee, B. D. (2001). Aiming for
excellence: gifted program standards. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Lewis, R. B., & Doorlag, D. H. (1999). Teaching Special Students in General
education Classrooms (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merill Prentice Hall.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and Talented: Report to the
congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The
nature of planning and influences on it. The Elementary School
Journal, 81(1), 4-23.
NAGC. (n.d.). Frequently used terms in gifted education. Retrieved June 30,
2007, from http://www.nagc.org
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being:
what does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10-17.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rayner, S. G. (2001). Aspects of the self as learner: perception, concept, and
esteem. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Self perception (pp. 25-52).
Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Renzulli, J. S. (2004). What makes a problem real: stalking the illusive
meaning of qualitative differences in gifted education. In J. Van
Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Curriculum for Gifted and Talented Students (pp.
45-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
151
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (n.d.). The Schoolwide Enrichment Model
Executive Summary. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from University of
Connecticut Web Site:
http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~nrcgt/sem/semexec.html
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1998). Talent development through curriculum
differentiation. National Association of Secondary School Principals,
82(595), 61-74.
Robinson, N. M. (2002). Individual differences in gifted students' attributions
for academic performances. In M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. Robinson & S.
Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children
(1st ed., pp. 61-67). Washington D.C.: Prufrock Press, Inc.
Rogers, K.B. (2002). Re-Forming gifted education. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press, Inc.
Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., & Stern, M. J. (2006).
Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web
surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(1), 66-77.
Spillane, J. P. (January 8, 2002). Challenging instruction for all students:
policy, practitioners, and practice (JCPR-WP-253). Illinois: Joint
Center for Poverty Research.
Stages of Social-Emotional Development in Children and Teenagers. (n.d.).
Retrieved May 5, 2008, from Child Development Institute Web Site:
http://www.childevelopmentinfo.com/development/erickson
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: a triarchic model. Roeper
Review, 22, 231-236.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1998). Programs for the gifted: to be or not to be.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(1), 3-36.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tomlinson, C. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom:
Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
152
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to
the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2002). lessons from bright learners about affect. Gifted
Education Communicator, 33(1), 40-41.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating Differentiated Instruction
and Understanding By Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Part A - Definitions. In Title IX -
General Provisions (Sec.9101. Definitions). Retrieved August 23,
2007, from Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title IX -
General provisions Web Site: http://www.ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (2006, August 30). In Improving basic
programs operated by local education agencies (Title I, Part A) ().
Retrieved August 22, 2007, from www.ed.gov Web Site:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
Van Tassel-Baska, J. (1981). An administrator's guide to the education of
gifted and talented children. Washington, D.C.: National Association of
State Boards of Education.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings across
20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program
development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-215.
Van Tassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. X. (2004). Designing and utilizing
evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press,
Inc.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
153
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Examining the teaching life.
Educational Leadership, 63(6), 26-29.
Winebrenner, S. (2001). Teaching Gifted Kids in the Regular Classroom
(Rev. ed.). Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing.
154
Appendix A
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
Appendix B
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Script:
My name is Dena Sellers and I am a doctoral student at the University of
Southern California. I am working with Dr. Kaplan on the Javits Grant project
in which you are a participant. I have some questions to ask you that
elaborate on some of the items you responded to on the Teacher
Questionnaire. I will be taping this interview in order to be able to analyze
your responses for data collection purposes.
Please state your name, you school’s name and your grade level.
I am going to present you with these class composition cards that
describe class grouping patterns. These class composition patterns reflect
current California State law requirements for number of students enrolled in
primary and upper grade classrooms. Please look at each carefully. I will
then present you with two lessons aligned to the same content standard.
Please choose which lesson you would choose to teach each of the varied
class compositions I have presented. We will repeat this with three different
class compositions and four lesson sets, one in each major subject area:
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies. These lessons
represent content standards that cross the grade levels.
172
1. If your class was a heterogeneous classroom with a defined and
assigned cluster group of gifted students which of these two lessons
would you choose? Why did you choose that lesson? (Repeat with all
four subject areas)
2. If your class was a heterogeneous class with no identified gifted
students which of these two lessons would you choose? Why did you
choose that lesson? (Repeat with all four subject areas)
3. If your class was a heterogeneous classroom with some identified
gifted students which of these two lessons would you choose? Why
did you choose that lesson? (Repeat with all four subject areas)
4. If your class contained all gifted students which of these lessons
would you choose? Why did you choose that lesson? (Repeat with all
four subject areas)
173
Appendix D
Class Composition Cards for Interview
Heterogeneous Class with Defined and Assigned Cluster Group of Gifted
Students
Card A(P)
Heterogeneous Class with No Identified Gifted Students
Card B(P)
174
Heterogeneous Class with Some Identified Gifted Students
Card C(P)
Homogeneous Class with all gifted students
Card D(P)
175
Class with Cluster Group of Gifted Students
Card A(U)
Heterogeneous Class with No Identified Gifted Students
Card B(U)
176
Heterogeneous Classroom With Some Identified Gifted Students
Card C(U)
Homogeneous Class with all gifted students
Card D(U)
177
Appendix E
Lesson Sample Cards
178
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
For years research on gifted education has discussed the importance of professional development for teachers of gifted students. This study examined data on how professional development has affected the choices of a group of teachers trained through a Javits Grant Project compared to a control group of teachers. This data revealed that professional development in models of teaching and differentiated curriculum and instruction resulted in teachers more often selecting differentiated strategies such as grouping practices, use of prompts of depth and complexity and teaching universal concepts and big ideas. Teachers also selected rationales for their choices of differentiated curriculum and instruction strategies such as affects all learners, expectations of the school or district, and expediency. Six of the teachers in the Javits Grant Project were then interviewed in order to determine how class composition affected their choices for differentiated or traditional lessons. These teachers' responses revealed that they would choose to teach the differentiated lesson consistently only for classes with a cluster group of gifted students or a class comprised solely of gifted students. This study also examined the self-perceptions of students in these six teachers' classrooms in order to determine if a relationship existed between the teacher s' choices for differentiated lessons and their students' self-perceptions. No significant relationship existed between the self-perception responses of either of the groups
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Teachers' choices of curriculum and teaching methods and their effect on gifted students' self-perceptions
PDF
The spill over effect: an examination of differentiated curriculum designs in a heterogeneous classroom
PDF
Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching
PDF
Relationships between teachers' perceptions of gifted program status and instructional choices
PDF
Factors affecting the transfer of differentiated curriculum from professional development into classroom practice
PDF
Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes
PDF
Technology as a tool: uses in differentiated curriculum and instruction for gifted learners
PDF
Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice
PDF
The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines
PDF
Differentiated culturally relevant curriculum to affirm identity for gifted African American students
PDF
How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools
PDF
Actual and ideal instructional practices in California high school gifted geometry education
PDF
No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction
PDF
Factors that influence the identification of elementary African American students as potentially gifted learners
PDF
The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students
PDF
The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination
PDF
Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of instructional strategies for the gifted from differentiation professional development
PDF
Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study
PDF
A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers
Asset Metadata
Creator
Sellers, Dena M.
(author)
Core Title
Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/21/2008
Defense Date
04/28/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
differentiated,differentiated curriculum,differentiation,gifted,JAVITS,Kaplan,OAI-PMH Harvest,self perception,self-perception,teacher choices
Language
English
Advisor
Kaplan, Sandra N. (
committee chair
), Pensavalle, Margo T. (
committee member
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
)
Creator Email
dmseller@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1372
Unique identifier
UC1144225
Identifier
etd-Sellers-20080721 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-195177 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1372 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Sellers-20080721.pdf
Dmrecord
195177
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Sellers, Dena M.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
differentiated
differentiated curriculum
differentiation
gifted
JAVITS
Kaplan
self perception
self-perception
teacher choices